Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHO-SLOVAKIA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of publishing the correspondence that took place between Great Britain and Czecho-Slovakia after Munich, on the subject of the guarantee of the integrity of Czecho-Slovakia, in view of German allegations made on the subject?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): My Noble Friend will bear this suggestion in mind in connection with any further publication of correspondence on Anglo-German relations that may be decided upon.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA (OIL EXPORTS).

Mr. Levy: asked the Prime Minister what is now the position regarding the supply of oil from Rumania to Germany; whether British concerns in Rumania are, or may be, obliged to sell oil to Germany; and what representations have been, or are being made, to the Rumanian Government on this matter by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: The question of the export of oil from Rumania in all its aspects is at the present time the subject of discussion between His Majesty's Government and the Rumanian Government, and I am not in a position to make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (NARCOTICS TRAFFIC).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Prime Minister whether the attention of the British Government has been called to the serious increase in the traffic in narcotics in Nanking, and the occupied

areas of Kiangsi, Anhivei and Chekiang; whether any consular reports have been received on this subject; and, if not, whether they will be called for?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Regular annual reports are received from His Majesty's Consuls in the areas referred to, and these are awaited shortly.

Mr. Harvey: Will the appropriate organ of the League of Nations have its attention directed to this matter?

Mr. Butler: I think the appropriate organ of the League of Nations is already aware of it, but I will certainly see that it is informed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR MINISTRY (CLERK OF WORKS, PROSECUTION).

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has investigated allegations of illegal practices pursued by a clerk of works employed in his Ministry to supervise contract works, information of which was supplied to the Ministry; whether action was taken and with what result?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): Yes, Sir, and the man concerned has been sentenced to three months' imprisonment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY TRAINS (RESERVED COMPARTMENTS).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that on occasions certain railway carriages are labelled reserved and are not fully occupied; and whether he will consult with railway companies to secure that when other parts of the train are overcrowded and seats cannot be found, all unoccupied seats should be made available even though they are in so-called reserved compartments?

The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): Save in very exceptional circumstances, the reservation of seats or compartments on railway trains has been discontinued since the outbreak of war. I am not aware of the occasions to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will let me have particulars, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Mr. Tinker: I am glad to have had that answer; just at the time when we want equality we find the whole place is packed up. That was why I wanted to draw the attention of the Minister to the matter.

Captain Wallace: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to see me after Questions.

Mr. A. Edwards: Are compartments reserved from time to time for Government officials?

Captain Wallace: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend make sure that sleepers can still be reserved, because it would be inconvenient if too many people were sleeping?

Captain Wallace: My answer was about seats in compartments.

NORTHUMBERLAND (COAL DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to increase the transport facilities for the mines in Northumberland to enable long hauls to take place and thereby improve the working time at the mines?

Captain Wallace: As the hon. Member will be aware, the bulk of the Northumberland coal is normally carried by sea, and the rail facilities for its transport to other parts of the country are limited. The possibility of increasing the distribution of this coal by rail is, however, being closely examined in relation to other requirements.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that unless we get these facilities there will be a continuation of the present serious position; and is he also aware that men are kept working only by the number of empty wagons that are available?

Captain Wallace: Because it would be very desirable to provide more railway facilities in order to get coal from Northumberland we are examining the position very carefully at the moment.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that this examination has been proceeding for several weeks and that it was reported on by the Secretary for Mines several

weeks ago? When will it be completed? Is the Minister also aware that a large number of miners are idle?

Captain Wallace: The hon. Member will realise that there is a limit to the number of wagons which can be passed over the Tyne at Newcastle.

WATER SUPPLY (DUMBARTONSHIRE).

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking to ensure that there is an adequate emergency water supply in Dumbartonshire, in view of the work being carried on there by his Department; and whether he will immediately confer with the joint water committee to ensure such a supply being available?

Sir K. Wood: I am not aware of any likelihood of shortage of water Supply in Dumbartonshire, but I would certainly consult with the local authorities should this appear necessary so far as the Air Ministry is concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

EMPIRE AND FOREIGN PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: asked the Minister of Information whether verbatim reports of other Parliaments, foreign, Dominion and Colonial, are received regularly, and are studied by the Ministry?

The Minister of Information (Sir John Reith): Verbatim reports of proceedings in Empire and Foreign Parliaments are in most cases available, but it is not considered practicable or necessary for the Ministry to study them regularly. Summaries of proceedings of Dominion and Colonial legislatures, prepared by the Empire Parliamentary Association and issued in their Journal, are regularly read. Attention is drawn to important debates in foreign Parliaments through the Chatham House summary of the foreign Press and in cables from His Majesty's Missions.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Is it not very important that people in this country should have some means of knowing what


is happening in those Parliaments? We are not getting that information, and we have been very much handicapped?

Mr. Mander: Is not the Empire Parliamentary Association publication, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, very admirable, and does it not give us a very great deal of information?

Mr. George Griffiths: Who passes on to Haw-Haw the answers given to Questions here every day?

Sir J. Reith: A great many Members besides the hon. Member would be glad to know.

Mr. Griffiths: I hope you will find out.

STAFF (STENOGRAPHERS).

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: asked the Minister of Information, why stenographers at the Ministry of Information are paid 15s. a week less than those doing the same class of work at the War Office?

Sir J. Reith: I cannot find any difference in the rates of pay of stenographers employed in similar grades in my Department and in the War Office. If my hon. Friend has any specific case in mind, and will communicate with me, I shall be glad to look into it.

REGIONAL OFFICERS.

Mr. Gledhill: asked the Minister of Information whether the regional officers of his Department are still in existence; and, if so, what are their exact functions?

Sir J. Reith: Yes, Sir. The regional information officers work in close association with the Regional Defence Commissioners, and in co-operation with the local Press, voluntary societies and such committees as may be desirable. One of their duties was and is to help to promote locally an understanding of the national war effort and to reflect the state of public opinion in their region. I have recently conferred with the regional officers and the matter of further regional activity is under consideration.

Mr. Gledhill: Why was it necessary to utilise the services of these officers recently in regard to certain branches of the Navy?

Sir J. Reith: I have not heard of that, but I will inquire, if my hon. Friend will give some further information on the point.

Mr. Mander: How many of these regional officers are there at the present time?

Sir J. Reith: The same number as there are regional defence areas, 11.

POST OFFICE (PENSIONERS, RE-EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Treasury that an officer on pension of the service re-employed in his old grade will be paid the current minimum if his former salary was less than that minimum; and whether he will take steps to implement this decision in the case of re-employed Edinburgh postal servants formerly on pension who are at present being paid 5s. 6d. below the current minimum for their grade?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. The figure of 5s. 6d. which he quotes is the difference between the present pay of certain re-employed pensioners who are getting their former maximum of 88s. 6d., and the current maximum for their grade of 94s. The pensioners in question are receiving 30s. 6d. more, and not 5s. 6d. less, than the current minimum for their grade.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the individuals in question are under no misapprehension and that they consider they are getting 5s. 6d. less than people doing the same work alongside them?

Major Tryon: I am sure that they are not under any misapprehension. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that we are not implementing the decision of the Treasury. The difficulty about answering his Question is that he unfortunately used the word "minimum" while the word appropriate to his argument and the context was "maximum"—which is different.

HUTMENTS, CHELTENHAM (BRICK SUPPLY).

Mr. Lipson: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether local bricks are being used in the building of hutments on the outskirts of Cheltenham?

The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ramsbotham): Local bricks are being used for the foundations.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that, in Cheltenham, there is a long-established firm which makes bricks, and of the necessity for restricting the use of petrol for unnecessary transport, would my right hon. Friend say why local bricks are not used?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The erection of these hutments is being carried out on the basis of lump-sum contracts. The contractor has to provide bricks, and he provides those which are the cheapest and most satisfactory to meet the case. I understand that local bricks were dearer and that delivery could not be guaranteed.

Mr. Lipson: Did the right hon. Gentleman or anybody in his Department verify those facts, and if not, has he any written evidence that local bricks were dearer?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of my information.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

REQUISITIONED FISHING BOAT (LOCH FYNE).

Mr. Woodburn: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what were his reasons for requisitioning the fishing boats of Loch Fyne in the midst of their fishing season; and what steps he is taking to prevent ruin falling upon the fishermen in that area from the loss of the boats in which their life's savings have been invested?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. J. J. Davidson) yesterday. Only one Loch Fyne boat has so far been requisitioned. Full compensation will be paid.

GERMAN AIRMEN (RESCUE FROM SEA).

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the murdering of unarmed seamen by German airmen, he will consider ceasing to send ships out to pick up these German airmen when their planes are brought down in the sea?

Mr. Churchill: The ordinary instincts of humanity require the rescue from the sea of drowning men or castaways, should they be observed by His Majesty's ships in the course of their duties.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is not saving people from drowning a very different thing from sending out a British ship with British men on board in dangerous waters to pick up people who may or may not be there?

Mr. Churchill: I think my answer covers that point as well as the other point of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that it is repugnant to every seaman not to do his utmost to rescue anyone from the water?

Miss Wilkinson: If the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is the view of the Admiralty, why was it not put into operation with regard to drowning Spanish refugees?

Mr. Churchill: I did not have the opportunity of answering Questions at that time.

FISHING VESSELS (ENEMY ATTACKS).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the continued machine-gunning of the crews of British trawlers and fishing-boats by enemy aircraft, he has taken adequate steps for their defence; and whether the question of reprisals or counter-measures has been considered?

Mr. Churchill: We are ceaselessly engaged in planning and putting into execution defensive measures and counter-measures; and these can only be judged by their results.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it be accurate to say that, whilst many vessels are at present manned with guns for their protection, the right hon. Gentleman hopes that within a month or six weeks every merchant vessel trading in the North Sea will be similarly protected?

Mr. Churchill: Yes, Sir. I have every hope that a very great measure of protection will be afforded to our men in this dangerous area, and I trust that it will be accomplished in a comparatively short time. Already a great deal has been done. Naturally, one could not


have expected that kind of attack on unarmed and small vessels, but now it appears that every vessel must be effectively armed to resist murderous attacks.

HASLAR HOSPITAL (ACCIDENTAL DEATHS).

Sir J. Lucas: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, on Friday, 2nd February, two inmates of the Royal Naval Hospital at Haslar died as a result of carbon dioxide being erroneously placed in an anaesthetic machine and administered during operations; whether adequate steps have now been taken to prevent a recurrence; and whether pecuniary compensation will be given to the relatives or dependants?

Mr. Churchill: I am aware of the very regrettable accident to which my hon. Friend refers. The fullest investigation is being made into all the circumstances, but in the meantime immediate steps are being taken to prevent the recurrence of such a case. For the purpose of payment of pension these men's deaths will be regarded as attributable to Naval service. The question of further compensation will be considered when the inquiries have been completed. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with the relatives of the deceased.

VOLUNTEER RESERVE OFFICERS (PROMOTIONS).

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of sublieutenants, Royal Naval Volunteer Supplementary Reserve, promoted to the rank of lieutenant after attending a course in a shore establishment since the out-break of hostilities, giving the length of service and qualifications in each case?

Mr. Churchill: The number of former members of the Royal Naval Volunteer Supplementary Reserve who have been promoted to the rank of temporary lieutenant, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, after a period of preliminary training, is about 400. The length of the training course has varied according to the qualifications which the officer already possessed and the appointment for which he was required.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of temporary lieutenants over 35 years of age at present serving in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve; how many of these

officers served in the Great War, 1914–18; and whether they can now be prompted to temporary lieutenant-commanders when recommended by their commanding officers and performing duties commensurate with that rank?

Mr. Churchill: I regret that the information asked for by my hon. Friend in the first part of his Question is not available. Certain temporary officers are already serving in the rank of lieutenant-commander where their duties merit this rank, and such promotions will continue to be made in suitable cases.

Sir P. Hannon: In considering promotions, will service rendered by these officers in the last war be taken into account? Is it not rather embarrassing for these officers, in view of their services in the last war, to have young officers, with a comparatively short period of training, over them?

Mr. Churchill: Yes, Sir. That problem is not confined to this class of officers or to the Admiralty, but certainly those, and other, aspects have to be taken into account in connection with promotions which are made in the emergency of war.

GERMAN MERCHANT VESSELS, ROTTERDAM.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make as to how the five enemy merchant vessels now loading cargoes in the port of Rotterdam managed to escape detection when proceeding to that port?

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member's statement is not in accordance with the information I have received; but, in any case, he will be aware that the coast lines of Holland and Germany are contiguous. It is not from any lack of zeal or thought that any enemy vessels have so far escaped capture or destruction.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that five German vessels have been in the port of Rotterdam since the beginning of January, but that during the last three days only one vessel, the "Schleswig-Holstein," remains in that port; and that these vessels are carrying German coal to Norwegian and Swedish ports, and returning with iron ore?

Mr. Churchill: I am not certain of the actual facts which the hon. Gentleman


has mentioned; but, naturally, the whole of this subject is under constant examination by the naval authorities, and our wishes in the matter conform exactly to his own.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that my information is gained from Rotterdam sources which are reliable?

Mr. Churchill: We try to acquire information from various sources; but at any time when the hon. Gentleman has any additional information to give, he has only to mention it.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend quite satisfied that the naval patrol is being efficiently carried out in this matter?

Mr. Churchill: No one would expect us to be able to maintain a close patrol or close blockade off the German coast, having regard to the enormous development of shore-based aircraft since the last war.

CASUALTIES (DEATH CERTIFICATES).

Sir Irving Albery: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether some steps can be taken in the case of death casualties to make available a death certificate to the nearest relative free of charge, or, otherwise, whether arrangements can be made for some suitable certificate from the Admiralty to be accepted by the authorities and insurance companies instead?

Mr. Churchill: Statements giving the date of death of naval officers or men who lose their lives on war service are issued on application by the Admiralty; these statements are usually accepted by insurance companies and other similar organisations as evidence of death.

Sir I. Albery: If I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to correspondence that I have received on the subject, will he consider making some greater facilities available?

Mr. Churchill: Certainly, I shall be much obliged if my hon. Friend will write to me, or otherwise state his case to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

SHIPBUILDING (PALMER'S WORKS, JARROW).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he contemplates using Palmer's site, Jarrow, for one of the proposed shipbuilding yards?

Mr. Churchill: The whole question of the capacity required for merchant shipbuilding is under investigation. The first task will be, of course, to see that the fullest possible use is made of all yards which are immediately available to undertake new construction. I am afraid that I can, at present, hold out no hope of the re-opening of yards which are now totally dismantled.

Miss Wilkinson: Am I to understand from that that the policy of National Shipbuilders Security, Limited, which has put dangerous limitations on our shipbuilding capacity, is now being reversed by the Admiralty?

Mr. Churchill: Certainly we are opening up every facility for building merchant ships of which our labour and materials enable us to take advantage.

Miss Wilkinson: In the circumstances, does the First Lord not think it strange that the man responsible for reducing our shipbuilding capacity should be put in charge of our shipbuilding capacity?

Mr. Churchill: Circumstances alter cases.

Mr. A. Edwards: Can the First Lord assure the House that there will be no limitation placed on his activities with regard to shipbuilding by National Shipbuilders Security, Limited?

Mr. Churchill: Everything will be done to produce the greatest possible volume.

SHIPPING CONTROL.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Minister of Shipping whether merchant ships built under the Government scheme and transferred to the control of his Ministry will be managed by him as regards conditions of service of officers and men employed in the ships?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping (Sir Arthur Salter): The ships will be managed by shipowners on behalf of my right hon. Friend, and


the managers will be required to pay the rates of wages and to comply with the conditions established by the National Maritime Board.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it does not follow from that reply that the Ministry of Shipping may not only be in control of such ships, but that it will have no power to alter unsatisfactory conditions of officers and men serving in these ships.

Sir A. Salter: Most of the ships that we requisition are chartered on conditions which leave the owners responsible for obtaining and paying the crew, but we are, of course, in constant consultation with owners and with the unions as to the conditions of employment and any difficulties that there may be in regard to the supply of men.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: In view of the importance of this Question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment.

SAFETY OF CREWS.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Shipping whether, in order to secure the greater safety of crews under present conditions, he will insist on a motor life-boat being included in the equipment of ships at present being built?

Sir A. Salter: It is proposed to include a motor-boat in the equipment of ships now being built on Government account in all suitable cases, and owners of ships building on private account are being recommended to make similar provision.

Miss Wilkinson: May I ask if the word "suitable" indicates a certain level of tonnage or are motor-boats included with smaller boats?

Sir A. Salter: In general it means they are being included in all ships of a fairly large type and not, as a general rule, in small coastal craft.

Miss Wilkinson: But the Minister no doubt realises how much hardship and suffering as well as loss of life are caused by men drifting about the North Sea in boats which have only oars. Small motors could be included in small life-boats and small ships. Can the hon. Gentleman press that the word "suitable" shall include the small ships?

Sir A. Salter: I said it was in small craft in coastwise work that they were not being included. I did not say the North Sea. I will discuss with the technical people as to the inclusion of these boats in all reasonably suitable classes of vessels.

BRITISH PROTECTORATES (RESIDENTS, NATURALISATION).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is now possible to say when legislation is likely to be introduced which would enable residence in certain British Protectorates, including the Nigerian Protectorate, to be counted as a qualification for naturalisation as British subjects?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): No, Sir. I regret that, in the present circumstances, it is not possible to say when legislation of this kind is likely to be introduced.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is some time since I first raised this matter, which is of considerable importance, particularly in view of the present state of the world, and will he consider approaching the matter with a little more energy?

Mr. MacDonald: The matter was under consideration when my hon. Friend asked me questions about it earlier, but, naturally, the whole circumstances have changed since the declaration of war.

Mr. Lipson: Do not the circumstances make it more necessary now that legislation should be introduced?

PALESTINE (JEWISH IMMIGRATION).

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has anything to report about conditions in Palestine; whether he has fully realised the universal Jewish adherence to the Allied cause; and whether he is relaxing the severe restrictions on Jewish immigration in order to foster good will?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The steady improvement in the internal situation in Palestine has been fully maintained. I am fully aware of the whole-hearted support which is being given by Jews


throughout the world to the Allied cause, one of the purposes of which is the freeing of the Jews from their cruel persecutors in Central Europe. As regards the third part of the Question, His Majesty's Government's policy allows for a very considerable immigration of Jews into Palestine over the next few years, and there is no question of departing from that policy.

Mr. Leach: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the term "very considerable degree of immigration," which I understood him to use, is not accepted on this side of the House, and will he consult with his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who has a wiser view of this matter than he has?

Mr. MacDonald: The legal quota allowed something over 10,000 Jews to settle in Palestine in six months, which I think is a very considerable figure of immigration.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be no restrictions on the sale of land to Jews?

Mr. MacDonald: That is another question.

CEYLON (PILOT SERVICE).

28. Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds Mr. P. F. Trade well has been transferred from pilot age duties at Colombo to Galle; whether he has suffered any diminution of income thereby; and whether the appointment to Galle is in consonance with the seniority of Mr. Tradewell in the pilot service?

Mr. M. MacDonald: It was necessary that on the outbreak of war the Pilot and Examination Service at Colombo should be combined, which made the pilots concerned combatants. Of the 11 pilots all except the officer mentioned in the Question volunteered to carry out the duties of examining officers in war-time. Mr. Tradewell had conscientious objections to combatant work, and he was transferred to pilot duties at Galle where combatant duties would not be involved. Though the salary is in each case the same, the average earnings in night fees of pilots at Colombo are somewhat higher than those of the pilot at Galle, but any pilot

in the Ceylon service irrespective of seniority is liable to be posted for duty at Galle in the interests of the Government.

BRITISH COLONIES (DEFENCE REGULATIONS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the right of public meeting and the publication of newspapers can still be exercised in all British Colonies; how many publications have been suppressed; and whether native, political and industrial organisations can function freely?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Apart from Defence Regulations, which follow in the main those brought into operation in this country, there has, so far as I am aware, been no change since the outbreak of war in Colonial legislation affecting the matters referred to in the first and third parts of the Question. Nor am I aware of any instance of the suppression of a publication since the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

BILLETING.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of making adequate arrangements in advance for the summer season, he will free householders whose livelihood consists in the letting of apartments and rooms, from any compulsion to accept billeted persons who should be housed otherwise in the locality?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): Billeting authorities in reception areas will no doubt give proper consideration to householders whose livelihood consists in the letting of apartments, but my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be desirable or practicable to give a special exemption from the obligation to accept billeted persons.

Sir T. Moore: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is very considerable public disquiet in regard to the Jack of a clear policy upon this whole question of evacuation, and will the Government issue precise instructions to the country so that we shall know exactly what every individual has to do and his duty in connection with it?

Miss Horsbrugh: In this answer I have pointed out that it is not desirable or practicable to give a general instruction on the subject of billeting in this matter, but my right hon. Friend will shortly be making a statement on the subject.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will the hon. Lady keep in mind the fact that there is a possibility that householders in certain areas may desire to get rid of evacuees in order to extract extortionate holiday payments from holidaymakers?

Sir T. Moore: Why not?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think that all these questions are being borne in mind.

Mr. Davidson: I hope so.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. TINKER:

32. To ask the Minister of Health whether he is aware that at a meeting held in Leigh, on Monday, 5th February, 1940, to consider the Government's policy on old age pensions, a resolution was carried to ask the Government to reconsider the position, as no satisfaction can be given to old age pensioners unless a fiat rate increase is given to all; and will he say if this appeal will be examined by him?

Mr. Tinker: Mr. Speaker, before asking this Question, I would like your Ruling on the following point. Last Wednesday I handed in at the Table a Question addressed to the Prime Minister, and it appeared on the Order Paper the following day in that form. On Friday I got a reply from the Prime Minister saying that it would be answered by the Minister of Health. Obviously this is a question which can only be answered by the Prime Minister, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in keeping with the dignity and authority of the Prime Minister that he should avoid answering a Question which obviously is a Question for him to answer? I ask your Ruling on the matter?

Mr. Speaker: This is a question upon which I am very often asked to give a Ruling, and I have stated that, with regard to a Question to a certain Minister, if it appears that it is a matter for which

a Minister of another Department is responsible, it will be transferred to that Minister and the Member who has put down the Question will be notified.

Mr. Tinker: I hope the Prime Minister will take note of my remarks.

Miss Horsbrugh: The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to the resolution to which the hon. Member refers, but the Government's policy on old age pensions is embodied in the Bill now before the House.

Mr. Tinker: Before framing this Question, did the hon. Lady consult with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health?

Miss Horsbrugh: I certainly consulted with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Thorne: As no doubt the Prime Minister has read the Question on the Order Paper, what does he think about it?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SUGAR-BEET.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that farmers are being refused any supplies of sugar-beet pulp unless they guarantee to grow a certain acreage of sugar-beet for 1940; and whether this is in accordance with instructions issued by his Department?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is informed that farmers who grew sugar-beet in 1939 have, in every case, received the full amount of sugar-beet pulp to which they were entitled under their contracts, and that in disposing of surplus supplies the British Sugar Corporation is, for the time being, giving a preference to farmers who have contracted to grow sugar-beet for 1940. No instructions on this subject have been issued by the Ministry but the arrangements referred to meet with my right hon. Friend's approval.

Sir M. Manningham-Buller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many areas that are unsuitable for growing sugar-beet where sugar-beet pulp is required for feeding purposes?

Mr. Ramsbotham: In dealing with this surplus, I understand that the corporation has confined the offer for the moment


to farmers under contract far 1940, and has allocated the limited supplies among farmers who are clearly making sugar-beet growing part of their farming programme for 1940–41.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: As I presume the Government are anxious that more sugar-beet should be grown in this country, does my right hon. Friend think they are likely to get it if they do not encourage farmers?

Mr. Ramsbotham: This is a question of distributing a surplus.

FOX AND STAG-HUNTING.

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that fox and stag-hunting damages agriculture, handicaps the food supply, discourages the allotment industry, takes away fit men and women from productive work, and so is detrimental to the national interests; and will he take steps to procure its prohibition?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Careful consideration has been given to the effects of hunting upon the national economy in war time, but my right hon. Friend, as at present advised, sees no sufficient reason for adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Leach: Am I to take it that the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat indifferent about the food supply?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I suppose the hon. Gentleman refers to damage done by foxes to poultry, and I would point out that it is the foxes that do the damage and not the hunting.

Mr. John Morgan: Will the Department of Agriculture find any objection if farmers take this matter in hand themselves and destroy the foxes?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I gather that the Master of Foxhounds Association is fully alive to the importance of damage to poultry, and measures have in fact been taken with a view to reducing the fox population well below the normal.

ANIMAL FEEDING-STUFFS.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture on what grounds he has decided to give preference in feeding-stuff supplies to cattle and sheep before pigs

and poultry; whether the decision is connected with the greater economy in consumption of imported feeding-stuffs in the case of the former over the latter; and if he can give any figures in support of the case?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The grounds on which the Government decided to give preference in feeding-stuffs supplies to cattle and sheep before pigs and poultry were set out in the announcement made by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland on 22nd November, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. He will observe that the consideration to which he refers in the Question is not among the main factors on which the Government's decision was based. The last part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (BENEFICES).

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (1) what arrangements are made in the case of vacant livings for placing at least a proportion of the income to reserve, and/or improving the amenities of the different rectories so as to enable them to be supplied with water and electric light;
(2) how many vacant livings in the rural areas are due to the rectories being unsuitable and too large, and what pro portion of the total this represents;
(3) how many livings in the Church of England there are at the present time; and how many have been vacant for at least six months and a year respectively?

Mr. Denman (Second Church Estates Commissioner): The surplus revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are assigned by Statute towards making additional provision for the cure of souls; the Commissioners have no authority relating to the incomes of vacant benefices or to the filling of them.

COAL INDUSTRY (DOMESTIC SUPPLIES).

Mr. Touche: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been


called to the serious shortage of coal in the Borough of Reigate; and what steps he is taking to relieve the situation?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Yes, Sir. I am aware that Reigate was one of the places to which the supply of coal was affected by the exceptionally severe weather of last month. I am informed that the railways are now working coal through to destination as quickly as possible.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is also a severe shortage in the Borough of Hackney and will he look into it?

Hon. Members: And in the boroughs of Poplar and Westminster.

Mr. T. Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say that the position generally is easier than it was last week?

Mr. Lloyd: I can say that the railways are working more smoothly. I am in touch with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Transport.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is any amount of coal if it can be carried?

BRITISH ARMY (COMFORTS FOR TROOPS).

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: asked the Secretary of State for War whether lie can give an assurance that steps have been taken to provide immediately for any deficiency that may arise in the supply of woollen comforts for the troops, especially in view of the impression that may be created by certain broadcast and other appeals that the supply of these articles may not be adequate?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): The troops are supplied with all necessary clothing officially, but the provision of additional comforts, such as mittens, mufflers, socks and stockings, is always welcome, and very large numbers of these and other gifts have already been distributed, and are being collected and forwarded. The activities of voluntary workers and donors, whose industry and generosity are widely appreciated, are helped and directed by the Comforts Committees of each of the

three Services, and by the Director-General of Voluntary Organisations who has been appointed as a co-ordinating authority to ensure the equitable distribution of gifts not specifically earmarked or dealt with by one or other of the Service organisations.

DEFENCE REGULATIONS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered resolutions from a number of organisations in Leyton protesting against defence regulations affecting the restriction of democratic liberties and trade union rights, the power of censorship, the detention of British subjects without trial, the prohibition of meetings on grounds of disaffection, entry and search without warrant, and other matters; and what action he proposes to take?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My right hon. Friend has received such resolutions from two organisations in Leyton. The matters referred to were debated in the House in October, and subsequently a number of amendments were made and a revised code of defence regulations was introduced. My right hon. Friend does not think any further revision of the regulations is called for.

EXIT PERMITS (MR. IVOR MONTAGU).

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary whether he will reconsider his refusal to allow Mr. Ivor Montagu to go to Russia as a representative of a British newspaper seeing that we are not at war with Russia, considering further the importance of having a friendly Englishman in touch with the Russian leaders and in a position to report on the Russian armed forces?

Mr. Peake: My right hon. Friend has given the most careful consideration to this application but he regrets that he is not prepared to modify his view that it would not be in the public interest to grant an exit permit in this case.

Mr. Thurtle: Arising out of the reply, is the Minister satisfied that Mr. Montagu is correctly described in this Question as a friendly Englishman?

Mr. McGovern: It is a printer's error.

Colonel Wedgwood: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether this refusal is personal to Mr. Montagu, whether I should be allowed to go, or whether it indicates hostility to Russia?

Mr. Peake: My right hon. and gallant Friend must understand that restrictions are placed upon foreign travel in time of war. Generally speaking the onus is on the applicant to show that his proposed journey is in the public interest. In this case my right hon. Friend cannot see that that burden of proof has been discharged.

Mr. Gallacher: Does the Minister mean that it is not in the public interest that people in this country should get information other than that which they get from the Goebbelised Press?

Colonel Wedgwood: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

BRITISH PROPAGANDA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that the Minister of Information shall, in future, be responsible for all forms of propaganda both in neutral and enemy countries, including the Department now controlled by the Foreign Office and the work done by the Royal Institute of International Affairs; and whether there will be any change in the News and Press Bureau under Sir Walter Monckton, as regards his association with the Ministry?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The exact scope and functions of the Ministry of Information are under consideration.

Mr. Mander: Can the Prime Minister say how soon he expects it to be possible for him to make a statement?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say.

Mr. Boothby: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the desirability of at least co-ordinating the propaganda in neutral and enemy countries and not having the direction of it in two completely separate organisations?

The Prime Minister: indicated assent.

WAR AT SEA (GERMAN POLICY).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish a White Paper on the conduct of the war at sea by Germany against British and neutral merchant shipping, and against lightships and their crews, in order that the world may be fully informed of the inhumanity which is being practised?

The Prime Minister: I have carefully considered the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member but have come to the conclusion that a White Paper would be less effective in reaching the general public abroad than the methods at present in use.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

PIGS AND BACON.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the proposed transfer of staff from the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards to the bacon and ham branch of the Ministry of Food, he can now state what it is proposed to do with the accumulated funds of the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): In accordance with Orders made by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland, under the Defence Regulations, 1939, the funds of the boards will be under the control of Emergency Committees appointed by the board.

Mr. De la Bère: Can we have some proper explanation as it seems to be rather free from clarity? What is to be the outcome of this? Is it going to be utilised for some purpose or is it to be sterilised?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. It is being looked after by an emergency committee in the interests of producers and distrbutors.

Mr. J. Morgan: With a view to finally dispersing, breaking up or restoring the organisation?

Mr. Morrison: If necessary and proper, restoring the organisation.

Colonel Burton: asked the Minister of Food the prices of pig feeding-stuffs for


the months of July, August, September, October, November and December, 1939; and the price of pigs for the same periods?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: With the permission of my hon. and gallant Friend, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The prices of pig feeding-stuffs for the months of July, August, September, October, November and December, 1939, and the price of pigs for the same periods.

Pigs Marketing Board Contract Prices—applicable to bacon pigs only.


—
Feeding-stuffs.
Standard pig price.



Cwt.
Score.


s.
d.
s.
d.


July, 1939
8
0
12
1


August, 1939
7
11
12
0


September 1st and 2nd, 1939.
7
10
11
11

War Period Prices—applicable to all pigs, whether for pork or bacon.


—
Feeding-Stuffs (see notes below).
Standard price, subject to specified deductions for heavy pigs,sows, boars and stags.




Score.




s.
d.


From 3rd September, 1939.

13
0


From 13th October, 1939.

14
0


From 6th November, 1939

15
0


From 1st December

*


* The Pigs (Provisional Prices) Order, 1939, was revoked as from the 1st December, 1939. The average contract price for first and second quality bacon pigs in England and Wales in December, 1939, was 17s. 7d. per score.

Feeding Stuffs.

(a) The Feeding Stuffs (Provisional Prices) Order, 1939, was made on 3rd September, 1939, requiring millers or merchants to charge not more than the highest price realised during the seven days prior to the date of the Order.

(b) The Feeding Stuffs (Maximum Prices) Order, 1939, was made on the 29th September, 1939, prescribing maximum prices for specified feeding-stuffs.

BAKING (COSTS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in connection with the investigation of the costs of the baking industry and the proposed modification of the scale by the Ministry of Food, the Government will take steps to ensure that the fullest possible information is made available to the costings branch of the Finance Department of the Ministry of Food?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The answer is in the affirmative.

BREAD (PRICE).

50. Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in connection with the relation of the price of bread to the price of flour, upon which the maximum price of bread is fixed, he will give an assurance that he will not accede to the representations of the baking industry in favour of a modification of the scale in their favour?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As my hon. Friend is aware, representations for a modification of the bread price scale have been made and an investigation into baking costs is being conducted by my Department. Pending the completion of this inquiry I can give no such assurance as is suggested.

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether flour has been fixed at a standard price for the war, and the quality is the same, why it has been possible to grade it so that it is cheaper in some districts than others? Does not the whole matter want looking into and can the Minister say how many of these bakeries are owned by milling combines?

MEAT.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Food whether he has found it possible to meet the Argentine Government's wishes concerning the allocation of the meat quota increase from that country; and whether the producer co-operative concerns have been allocated a reasonable share of the British Government's additional orders for meat?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am at present discussing this matter with His Excellency the Argentine Ambassador.

Mr. Morgan: May we take it that the Minister will have full regard to the pro-


ducer co-operative interests in the Argentine as against the British and American packing houses?

Mr. Morrison: I will endeavour to have regard to all relevant considerations.

Mr. Morgan: May I ask whether the Minister did not, in fact, first award this contract to packing houses and ignore the co-operative interests?

Mr. Morrison: That is a complete misstatement of the facts.

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that Market Drayton and district had no meat whatever in the week ended 3rd February; and whether he can explain the causes producing this result?

Mr. Morrison: I have had inquiries made into the allegation contained in the Question and I am assured that the Market Drayton butchers had their full allocation of the available supplies of meat from the Whitchurch depot during the week ended 3rd February. Unfortunately owing to the condition of the roads, supplies could not be delivered to Market Drayton and allocated to butchers on the Tuesday as in the previous weeks, but supplies were allocated on the Thursday.

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: Is it not the case that butchers made journeys through the snow in order to collect their meat and found that there was none?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of that.

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: asked the Minister of Food whether, as the distribution of meat system is not answering satisfactorily in Shropshire, he proposes to reinvestigate it with the object of establishing additional slaughter-houses in the county and avoiding the unnecessary transport charges which must now be incurred?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot accept the suggestion contained in my hon. and Gallant Friend's question that the control scheme for meat and livestock is not operating reasonably well in Shropshire, having regard to the short period in which the scheme has been in operation and the weather conditions during part of this time. I am watching the situation, however, in all areas, and any adjustments which appear necessary in the national interests will be made.

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to see that butchers and consumers receive their meat whether it is foreign meat or fresh meat as the case might be, as this policy of switching over from foreign to fresh meat is causing a great deal of discontent?

Mr. Morrison: The answer to that condition of affairs is that during this period, owing to the condition of the roads, very little home-killed meat was in fact offered, and had it not been for the control, enabling imported meat to be brought in, they would have gone without.

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. Friend examine what is happening in the county of Worcestershire, especially as regards Droitwich?

Mr. Marshall L: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that on 6th February a meeting, attended by 400 Sheffield butchers, was held to discuss the serious shortage of meat in the city; that a resolution was passed at the meeting protesting at the control of Sheffield's meat supplies being directed from Leeds; and whether, in view of the discontent this arrangement is causing, he is now prepared to give to Sheffield its own controlling office?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that a meeting of butchers was held in Sheffield to discuss the meat supplies of the city, and that dissatisfaction was expressed at Leeds being the headquarters of the Area Meat and Livestock Organisation for the North Eastern Area. Sheffield, however, has two deputy meat agents who are responsible for the efficient and equitable distribution of meat in the Sheffield district and I am not satisfied that any change in this organisation is necessary. Should experience indicate that an alteration is desirable, the question will be further considered.

Mr. Marshall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this meeting the butchers protested bitterly against this arrangement, and does he not think that a city of this importance is entitled to have a meat controller of its own, and not have to go 40 miles to Leeds?

Mr. Morrison: We have to choose some place in which to have the meat controller for the area, and in Leeds there are other organisations with which it is


very desirable that the meat controller should be associated in the regional organisation. I think the present arrangement does have regard to Sheffield's importance.

Sir H. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend think it would be better if there were no meat controllers?

PIG CLUBS.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Food what objections he has to the formation of pig clubs at the present time; and what facilities he can offer to existing pig clubs for that proportion of feeding-stuffs necessary to complete the ration where household waste forms the bulk of the feed?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The formation of pig clubs is to be encouraged and I am considering with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the steps that will be necessary to provide feeding-stuffs for the Pig Clubs that he hopes to see established in the near future under the auspices of the Small Pig Keepers' Council.

Mr. Morgan: Is it not a fact that a suggestion was put out that these clubs should not start until April because the Minister was not prepared to find the proportion of food necessary, and does it not seem false reasoning to deter local authorities who are finding 75 per cent. of the pig food while the Minister is finding 100 per cent. for farmers?

Mr. Morrison: If any such suggestion was made it did not emanate from me. I have seen a statement in a newspaper, mentioning the hon. Member's name, that we were not assisting municipal authorities such as Tottenham. But in fact I have had a letter of thanks from the Borough Council of Tottenham for the assistance we have given in the matter of the supply of pig food.

Mr. Morgan: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how I am to protect myself when my name is specifically referred to in a Supplementary reply of the Minister? Have I any fight to make the position clear?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can ask to be allowed to make a personal statement.

FATS CONTROL, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Food why those business concerns in Doncaster who, prior to control, used all the tripe produced in Doncaster, are now denied the tripe produced at the central slaughter-house; and why this tripe is sent out of the district?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Weather conditions during the first two or three weeks after the control plan came into operation were so abnormal as to reduce seriously the number of animals coming forward for slaughter. As a result, business concerns in Doncaster, as elsewhere, could only be allocated a percentage of their requirements of home-produced tripe. The supply situation is now improving. As regards the second part of the Question, the authorised slaughterhouse serves an area beyond the boundaries of Doncaster and the needs of the whole area served has to be taken into account.

Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Member satisfied that vested interests are not intervening; that offals are being sent out of the Doncaster area to another area then repurchased and brought back? Is that the way to conserve petrol?

Mr. Morrison: I have seen no evidence of that, but if the hon. Member has any facts I shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Food the name of the controller of fat for Yorkshire and the business he was associated with before accepting this post?

Mr. Morrison: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the arrangements made by the Ministry of Food for the distribution of raw fats available at the Government slaughterhouses to the edible section of the fat melting industry for the production of dripping. Local committees of fat melters have been set up in various parts of the country to facilitate the distribution arrangements and to secure economy in the use of motor transport used for the collection and distribution of the fats. The chairmen of these committees, who are serving without remuneration, are responsible for the allocation of raw fats to individual melters on a basis laid down by the Department, and for the invoicing of the raw fats delivered to the melters. The chairman of the Area Committee which includes Yorkshire is Mr. A. Waddington


who is associated with the firm of Messrs. P. Waddington and Company, Crossley Hall Bone Works, Bradford.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that this Controller is directly interested in a fat refinery, and to that extent is able to exercise influence to the benefit of his own factory or the factories allied to his factory?

Mr. Morrison: I have made particular inquiries into this matter, as I guessed something like that was behind the Question. I am told that it has been the policy of Mr. Waddington, the gentleman in question, to look after the interests of all other melters even to the detriment of his own firm. The basis on which the chairman allocates these fats is one laid down by the Department.

Mr. Garro Jones: Whatever merits the scheme may have, is it not the case that it has resulted in an increase in the price of dripping by more than 100 per cent. to poor people? What steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to get a better result?

Mr. Morrison: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the Doncaster Co-operative Society, who slaughtered 50 or more animals per week prior to control, utilised all the fat for their own customers and other users in the district; that since control all the fat from the central slaughterhouse is sent out of the district and users are obliged to purchase and convey the same back from 30 or 40 miles away; and why this unnecessary transport is enforced and local firms are denied the right to purchase fat from their own slaughterhouse?

Mr. Morrison: The licensing provisions, under which raw fat required for the production of dripping is allocated to approved manufacturers, have been in force since 25th September, 1939, and the Doncaster Co-operative Society did not apply for a licence until 19th January. The nearest licensed manufacturer from whom they could obtain supplies is at Leeds. The Ministry, is, however, now reviewing the position in the Yorkshire area in the light of the application for a licence from the Doncaster Co-operative Society and other Co-operative Societies,

with the object of facilitating the provision of the fats required by these societies for the manufacture of dripping. If the Doncaster Co-operative Society requires raw fat for other manufacturing purposes they should apply to the Wholesale Meat Supply Association for the North Eastern Area, Wood Lane, Belmont, Leeds, which will make the necessary arrangements for a supply to be allocated to them.

Mr. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman see now the connection between this Question and the last? Does he deny that all the fats produced from the slaughter of cattle in the Doncaster area were prior to his scheme utilised by the Co-operative Society for fish fryers and restaurants, whereas now the fat is sent to a place 40 miles away from Doncaster and then repurchased and brought back to the Doncaster area? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a detailed inquiry made where interested persons are in control?

Mr. Morrison: I understand the explanation to be that which I have given—namely, that the Doncaster Co-operative Society did not apply for a licence until 19th January. There were no licensed premises in that area and the fat had to be sent to the nearest licensed premises, in Leeds.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a good reason why we should not nationalise things?

POTATO PRICES ORDER.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Food the reason for delay in issuing the potato prices Order; and whether he is aware that this delay in issuing the order has been used by some farmers as an excuse for withholding potato supplies from the market?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Order came into force on 12th February, and I am not aware of any delay in its issue, although time was naturally required for its consideration, in consultation with other Departments and trade and producer interests concerned. As regards the latter part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for the Deritend Division (Sir Smedley Crooke) last Thursday.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that this Order was promised on 13th December, and is not the delay due to some extent to the over-centralisation of the Department of the right hon. Gentleman? Could he not dissipate some of the decisions in this matter?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know to what promise the hon. Member refers, but I understand there were consultations with the trade interests concerned.

WASTAGE OF FOOD.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that, on 7th February, a Tottenham dustman, in the course of his employment, collected a dustbin containing 20 lbs. of rashers of bacon; will he inquire why this food was wasted; and whether similar wastage is going on throughout the country?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I was not aware of the wastage of bacon to which the hon. Member refers, but I am making local inquiry. I have no reason to think that such wastage is in any way common throughout the country.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: May I ask whether it is contemplated that penalties, either imprisonment or fine, for wilful waste of food shall be imposed, as was the case during the last war?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: At present we are relying on public opinion and the vigilance of local authorities in this matter, but if necessary, of course, powers of that kind will be taken.

Mrs. Hardie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the bacon supplied to consumers is only fit to be put into the dustbin?

Sir I. Albery: asked the Minister of Food, with reference to the Maidstone Food Control Committee's report on the waste of bread and subsequent action taken by the Maidstone Borough Food Control Committee, whether he is taking any action to prevent the waste of bread in the country generally?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: No Order has been made to prohibit the waste of food-stuffs, but the need for preventing waste has been stressed in public announcements and I hope that public opinion will prove an effective deterrent. The preven-

tion of waste will naturally be a main objective of the schemes which are being prepared for giving guidance to the public on the use of foodstuffs.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that it is useless for housewives to separate household refuse if there is no organisation to collect and utilise it in the rightway? Is he aware that I can give him instances where housewives, after collecting their waste food, have seen ashes and food refuse flung into the same bin?

Mr. Morrison: The salvage of waste food products is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, but from consultations which I have had with him, I know that this matter is being actively pursued by his Department.

STANDARD BREAD.

Mr. Haslam: asked the Minister of Food whether measures are being considered, similar to those taken in the last war, for bringing into general use a standard bread, containing middlings, bran and other nutritive substances of the wheat-grain at present absent from the white loaf in general consumption?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) on 13th December last.

BUTTER.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Food what percentage of the full butter ration was applied for by retailers in London, Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow, respectively, for the fifth and sixth weeks of rationing, separately?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I regret that, as separate statistics are not available of the issue of butter to retailers in individual districts, I am unable to answer this Question.

RETAILERS (REGISTRATION).

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that Messrs. Boots, Limited, chemists, 42/44, Warwick Way, London, S.W.1, have been registered by the local food control committee for the sale of bread, milk, jams, etc.; whether he can state the reasons for such registration; and whether there is any restriction on applications for registration by shops not normally dealing in such commodities?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The firm in question applied on 30th September last for a licence under file Food Control Committees (Local Distribution) Order, to sell, among other products, diabetic bread, diabetic jams and condensed and dried milk. These are items which they had previously been selling and which are commonly sold by chemists, and a licence was issued. Licences to sell the food-stuffs specified in the Order are not usually granted to firms not normally dealing in such commodities. I understand that the firm in question has no intention of going outside the ordinary range of commodities which it normally sells.

COOKERY DEMONSTRATIONS.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to educate the public in the best uses of food in war-time, and to encourage the gas and electrical supply industries to resume their demonstrations to cooks and housewives?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) on 7th February. My Department are in consultation with central organisations of the gas and electrical supply industries on the schemes for giving guidance to the public on the use of foodstuffs, and I am assured of their co-operation.

Sir P. Hurd: Does my right hon. Friend recollect the value of the demonstrations given by these undertakings some months ago?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that. I can tell my hon. Friend that these bodies have assured me of their co-operation, and I intend to avail myself of it to the full.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a few shillings for the gasmeter would also be very useful?

FEEDING-STUFFS.

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Food whether, since the omission of manufactured feeding-stuffs or mixtures from the Feeding-Stuffs (Maximum Prices) Order has led to profiteering on an extensive scale, he will take immediate steps to have a maximum price

fixed for these commodities, or, alternatively, a maximum charge fixed for the cost of manufacture?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: On present information I cannot accept the statement made in the first part of the Question, but I am having inquiries made into the cases that my hon. Friend has referred to me. With regard to the second part of the Question, there are difficulties, owing to the variety of the products, in the way of fixing maximum prices for them, but the matter is already under investigation. I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to Article 3 of the Feeding-Stuffs (Maximum Prices) Order dated 6th January, 1940, which limits the charges which may be added by the manufacturer, and to Article 14 of the same Order which gives the buyer the right to demand particulars of the additional charges.

Dr. Little: Will my right hon. Friend have inquiries made into the sale of these mixed feeding-stuffs, and where he finds there is profiteering, will he put it down with a strong hand as we are suffering terribly from this in Northern Ireland at the present time?

Mr. Morrison: I am examining these cases.

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. Friend make inquiries as to what is happening at the port mills to the straight-run feeding-stuffs as a result of the rascally manoeuvres of the milling combines?

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the serious complaints of farmers, pig and poultry producers in Northern Ireland as to the continued and severely-felt shortage of feeding-stuffs, Northern Ireland is now receiving its full quota of 66 per cent. of its pre-war allowance?

Mr. Morrison: Owing to unforeseen shipping delays the quantity of imported cereal feeding-stuffs which arrived in Northern Ireland during January was considerably less than 66 per cent. of the normal, but arrivals since the end of the month will make good the deficiency for January, and steps are being taken to ensure the supply of the full quota for February.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS WAR PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CYRIL ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Standard Price.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.48 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I should like to ask the Minister whether he can give some clarification of the figures with regard to the administration of the standard price for wheat? A varying amount was paid in respect of the wheat subsidy before the arrangement outlined in the Bill, and in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill there is an estimated figure of the increased cost. Last week the Minister of Food told us that the total cost to the Treasury of keeping the price of bread stable is £26,000,000. Can the Minister give us a figure showing what it is estimated will be paid to the farmers for home-produced wheat in order to bring it up to the standard price?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I was not given notice of this question, and I am afraid I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a figure now, but I will endeavour to give it at a later stage of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4 (Delegation to committee of powers of Wheat Commission.)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Jagger: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, to leave out "two," and to insert "three."
Under this Clause it is proposed to set up a committee of five members of the Wheat Commission. The quorum of the committee is to be two, and the chairman of the committee is to have a casting vote. We think that the quorum should be three instead of two. We may or we may not agree about the merits of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but I think

we would all agree that the dictatorship of an appointed chairman would be undesirable.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I desire to support the Amendment. I think it was Spurgeon, the famous preacher, who said that in his opinion the best committee was a committee of one, that one to be himself, but however highly-endowed with virtues a dictator may be, I object on principle to dictatorship, and the Clause, as it stands, would make the chairman of this committee, in certain circumstances, a dictator because it allows him a second or casting vote. This would mean that where only a quorum of two attended a meeting, the other member would be a mere cipher and the chairman would have the only say in whatever was decided. I submit that a quorum of three is small enough. In a quorum of three the chairman would still be able to exercise his casting vote in any difference of opinion which might arise.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I desire to support the Amendment and at the same time to ask the Minister, for the purpose of saving time, to take this opportunity of clarifying another point. The Wheat Commission is made up of various interests, representatives being drawn from North, South, East, and West. There is now to be appointed a committee of five members of that Commission. This means that some of the interests represented on the Commission must be excluded from that committee. The Bill goes further and suggests that a quorum of two is sufficient for this committee and that the chairman, as one of those two, should have a casting vote—which really turns the chairman into the committee. Will the Minister tell us who is likely to become the chairman of this committee and which interests in the wheat world will be represented by these five members?

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Colville: We can accept this Amendment, because we realise that the proposal in the Bill that the quorum should consist of two might, in certain circumstances, present difficulties. Although the chairman has a second or casting vote, it is obvious that he might be placed in a difficult position. I therefore accept the Amendment, which I think


will be an improvement on the Bill. The reason why it was decided that this committee should consist of five members was that there might be difficulty in members attending on all occasions owing to war conditions. I think that, with the Amendment which is now being made, the proposal in the Clause ought to get over any difficulty of that kind. With reference to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), I regret that I am not in a position just now to answer him fully, but I think there will be an opportunity for dealing with the matter at a later stage.

Mr. T. Williams: May I express our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for having accepted the Amendment and our hope that, at a later stage, he will be in a position to tell us exactly whom these five members will represent?

Mr. T. Smith: What happens to the committee if the chairman cannot attend?

Mr. Colville: In that case, I presume, the vice-chairman would act for him.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Extension of powers of Wheat Commission.)

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, to leave out "national service," and to insert "service under the Commission."
I move this Amendment in order to ascertain whether the proposal in this Clause means the creation of a new privileged class in this country. I would remind the Committee that prior to the outbreak of the war, when we were dealing with the first Military Training Act, considerable emphasis was placed by the Government on the importance of equality of training for those people who were to join the Services. I think the phrase used then was to the effect that "duke's son and cook's son" were to have equal treatment. The surprising thing is that when war broke out, the Government immediately departed from that idea of equality, and proceeded to create all manner of special classes. Under paragraph (d) of this

Clause the Commission will be empowered, subject to the concurrence of the Minister, to make payments to any officer or servant of the Commission or to the dependants of any officer or servant of the Commission
who is engaged in any national service or has been injured or killed in the performance of any such service.
What is meant by "any national service"? There is some mystification as to what payments are to be made in respect of any person who has been killed or injured in the performance of "any such service." The whole thing is left entirely in the hands of the Minister and the Commission. They are to determine what payments are to be made in this respect. I wish to know, therefore, from the Minister whether this does not mean the creation of a special class? A miner, a railwayman, an industrial worker of any kind may likewise be involved in national service. If any untoward accident happens to such a man, what kind of treatment will he or his dependants receive? Are these officials to receive special treatment and precisely how far do the Government propose to go during this war in the creation of special privileged classes in this country? If this is a national emergency, it ought to be met on the basis of equality for every citizen in this land, and there is no justification for introducing into this or any other enactment special conditions for special sections of the community.

3.59 p.m.

The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ramsbotham): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the meaning of this Clause. There is no question of any privilege or of any special treatment of any kind. The situation is this. The Wheat Commission incurs certain administrative expenses in discharging its functions under the Wheat Act. Those expenses include expenditure on the staff which is engaged in the work and the purpose of this proposal is to enable the Commission through the Minister to make arrangements, such as good employers normally make, in cases of injury or death among members of their staff while in their service. This question would not arise at all if the Wheat Commission were an ordinary Government Department but it is not a Government Department and consequently has no specific power to


make payments in respect of staff who are, for example, released for the fighting services—such as many good employers make—or who, in order to meet contingencies, are released and loaned to other Departments. That has already occured.
Without this Clause the position would be that a member of the Wheat Commission sent to another Department would be in difficulties in regard to his salary, which, of course, no one could possibly contemplate. Indeed, if he wanted to be sure of his salary, he would have to resign from the Wheat Commission and obtain his salary from another Department, and in this case he might lose superannuation rights and so forth. There is no question of any special treatment or privilege; we are merely safeguarding the position of servants of the Wheat Commission under special circumstances. If that is sufficiently clear to the hon. Member, I hope he will not press his Amendment.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: If I followed the explanation correctly, the Clause provides that any body of people who may be taken from the service of the Commission into the Armed Forces would also get their salaries paid, and that is just the complaint I make, that in every piece of legislation of this kind you bring in a special body of men who get special treatment in the service of the country. Do the Government propose to make the same provision for miners or for any other body of industrial workers who may be drafted into the Armed Forces? I am surprised that the industrial workers of the country have not long ago rebelled at this sort of process, this continuous enlargement of the area of privilege in the land, always at the expense of the industrial workers. It is time this sort of thing was stopped, and, as far as I am concerned, I shall object to it. It is not democracy, it is not Socialist principle, but it is all the while extending the area of the specially privileged classes in the country. I shall, therefore, force the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am sorry the hon. Member cannot accept my explanation. I should be sorry to put the Wheat Commission in a position worse than that occupied by good employers of to-day.

Mr. Mainwaring: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "good employers"? Does he presume that all employers in the country are in an equally good position to treat their employés in this manner? He ought to be aware that the conditions in industry in this country vary considerably, and the better intentioned employer might well be in the least favourable position to deal with his employés in this form. It is radically unfair to deal with employers on that basis, and the only way in which equal treatment can be given and employers as a whole deal equitably with their employés is for the Government to legislate to that effect. Let them, if they desire to give good treatment to men in the Forces, start by giving us evidence of their readiness to give a decent allowance to the soldier's wife. Let them start there. They resist every effort to increase allowances to the miner's wife or to give a decent possibility of pension to all, though they are prepared to assist in creating special classes, and I for one, on behalf of the average rank-and-file soldier and his wife and dependent children, object to this creation of privileged people.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these non-civil servants who have been employed by the Wheat Commission are intended to be drawn into exactly the same position as civil servants for this particular purpose; and, secondly, whether these Wheat Com mission employés are calculated actually to lose unless something is done to give them a compensation status? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) is right in raising the point of discrimination between wage workers on the one hand and salaried officers on the other. I have said myself from this bench that the time has now arrived when we ought to cease compensating the professional and sending the unemployed worker to the Employment Exchange, and every fresh Bill that comes along, widening the breach and broadening the discrimination between the two classes, is altogether unfair. At some time we shall have to take a stand most definitely on this question, but I doubt very much whether this is the opportunity for us to subject ourselves to gross misrepresentation because these people who have been employed partially


on a private and partially on a Government job may be diverted from the Wheat Commission to a Government Department or possibly into one or other of His Majesty's Forces. I doubt whether this is the right moment for us to express our resentment to the extent of marching into the Division Lobby. I do, however, share my hon. Friend's disgust at the continued discrimination between one section and another, and much as I share that disgust, I hope he will not feel disposed in the circumstances to force his Amendment to a Division.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: Very often in the courts one hears lawyers say they are not concerned about what was the intention of Parliament; they are merely concerned with what an Act of Parliament says. If this Amendment were carried, it would lay it down that compensation could be paid in respect of any officer of the Wheat Commission if he was killed or injured while in the service of the Commission. But this paragraph states:
subject to the concurrence of the Minister, to make payments to or to the dependants of, any officer or servant of the Commission who is engaged in any national service.
I do not know who will explain the legal side of the matter for the Government, but I could visualise one or two cases in which the ambiguity of this paragraph could be called into account. Let me give one that may not be quite sound, but I think it is. Suppose you had an officer or servant of the Wheat Commission doing some form of national service voluntarily while still employed by the Commission, and in the course of that voluntary national service he was either killed or injured. I would contend, if I happened to be one of the dependants of that man, that I could read into this paragraph that I would be entitled to claim compensation from the Wheat Commission, and I do not think that that is what the Government intend in this paragraph. I think it would be more watertight if the Committee were to accept the Amendment than to let the Clause go as it is worded.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I rise to put in a slightly different form the point raised by the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring). While I do not

object to payment of compensation, I think these words are unnecessarily wide, because I have looked through the Bill, and I am unable to find any definition of the words "national service." The words by themselves might cover a very large range of services, and the range is likely to increase as the war goes on. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that at the beginning of the war we passed a Measure dealing with people in the various Civil Defence Services, and stated that compensation should be payable by the Minister of Pensions to them or their dependants. But in that Measure we carefully defined the services to which we were referring; that is to say, we carefully denned, by implication, the circumstances in which compensation should be paid. If the Government are going to adhere to this form of words, it seems to me that there should be some definition in the Bill of what is meant by the term "national service."

Mr. Ramsbotham: I will look into that question between now and the Report stage, and, if necessary, we shall have to put it right.

4.11 p.m.

Major Colfox: Do we understand that, supposing an employé of the Commission were to join the Army or Navy and were to be killed, his dependants would be entitled to a pension from the Commission and also to one from the War Office or the Admiralty, as the case may be? If that is the case, I find myself, in spite of the way in which the hon. Member opposite has stated his case, with a certain amount of sympathy for him. It seems to me that whatever service the employé happens to be performing at the time should be remunerated by the Department which he is serving at the time of his injury or death, and not remunerated in addition by the Wheat Commission, as would be the case under the Clause as drawn.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I think the meaning is clear. This practice is adopted in a very large number of cases by local authorities and others, of helping financially those who join the Services where the case merits it, and I think the Commission should have the same power.


As regards the pension in the case mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, it would be drawn from the Army or Navy, as the case might be.

Mr. Mainwaring: I want to enter an emphatic protest from this side. I know of some hon. Members on this side who are prepared to support this principle, and I want to say to them as well as to the Government that this is a principle that they cannot, on behalf of the working class of this country, support. We cannot continue to create privileges in this manner.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I would like to have some explanation of paragraph (a) of this Clause. We are told that you have to extend the powers of the Wheat Commission, but I do not think we have had any explanation from the Government as to how far those powers are intended to be used. As I read the Clause, the Commission can enter into agreements for hiring premises, and they can do a great many other things, such as loaning their assets to any Government Department or any person designated by any Government Department. I feel sure that whoever is in charge of this Clause would wish to enable the Committee to have some knowledge as to the extent to which the Government wish to use these powers, which are very extensive and which will probably have to be extensive, but it is up to the Committee to know to what use the Minister anticipates putting these powers before we give him a completely blank cheque in the matter.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not think my hon. Friend has quite understood the position. It is not a question of increasing the powers of the Wheat Commission.

Mr. Williams: It is apparently a matter of extent. According to the Bill, you are widening their responsibilities, and I think that is to give them greater powers for extending their actions where necessary.

Mr. John Morgan: It is clear that the Commission would have power to deal with premises or staff. What lies behind the idea of a loan, and what operation is

in mind by the inclusion of this paragraph?

Mr. Ramsbotham: This, I understand, includes all property.

Mr. Morgan: And reserves of cash?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Already some staff of the Wheat Commission have been loaned.

Mr. Ridley: I think the Minister should be in a position to answer a little more specifically these questions. The Clause says the Commission may enter into any agreement for the letting or use of their premises, or for the hiring or use of any of their equipment, or for the loan of any of their assets to any other Government Department, or persons. Surely there is a distinction between premises on the one hand and assets on the other. There is a distinction between Departments and persons.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Calculating machinery and so forth.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Suspension of functions of Flour Millers' Corporation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: Now that the Secretary of State for Scotland has had 25 minutes in which to contemplate the matter, perhaps he will answer the same question as I put to him on Clause 2. This Clause provides for the suspension of the functions of the Flour Millers' Corporation to buy any stocks of home-grown millable wheat. One can always tell exactly the cost to the Treasury in a particular year of the deficiency payment made to the growers of home-grown wheat. Apparently the Committee is going on with the discussion of this Bill without any real knowledge of what is the estimated sum to be paid in the agricultural programme of the Government to the producer, at home, of wheat. We had the figure from the Minister of Food of £20,000,000 as a charge upon the Treasury in order to keep flour stable and avoid increasing the price of bread. That is averaged over the whole of the wheat supplies being handled by the Government


—either imported or home-produced. It is fundamental that we should know what is to be the estimated cost to the Treasury of the home programme for the production of wheat.

Mr. Colville: The right hon. Member has put the question again, but I should still like a little longer before giving any detailed reply. Last year the corresponding payment was £9,000,000. It is difficult to give a definite figure because so much depends on causes which affect prices that really in 25 minutes I could give no nearer estimate than that.

Mr. Alexander: We are in this position. The Minister of Food has given us a total figure of £20,000,000, and apparently he has worked on some basis. That basis must cover the two kinds of wheat—imported and home-produced. How much of the £20,000,000 is in respect of home-produced wheat, and how much is in respect of imported wheat? Surely there must be people under the Gallery who can tell the right hon. Gentleman that straight away.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: Is the price fixed to the farmers a true price in relation to world prices or an artificial price fixed by the Department for their own purposes? Unless we know, we shall not be able to have a true picture of what the amount is. If the farmer were allowed to go out into the free market, he would probably get 31s. 6d. Unless we know why the Department have fixed this artificial price to the farmer, we cannot get a true picture, and it is essential that we should know just what is involved in this transaction, how much agriculture is being assisted, and how much is necessary to assist imported prices in the consumer's loaf.

Mr. Colville: I cannot say, for the reasons I have already explained. It might be possible later to give rather more information. Obviously it is very difficult to forecast the figure, but I will endeavour to do so.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will obtain that information, because the Financial Memorandum refers to a figure of £6,000,000, and quite obviously the Department had some figure in mind as to what would hitherto have been a deficiency payment apart

altogether from the general Treasury payment for wheat to keep prices of bread stable, as is being done at the present time. It does not seem to me to be difficult to arrive at the cost. Before the Bill was produced some calculation must have been made, and that calculation is embodied in the figure of £6,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman ought not only to give this information but should also have a great deal more information for us.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Interpretation, construction and citation of Part 1.)

4.22 p.m.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I beg to move, in page 5, line 41, to leave out "two years," and to insert "one year."
I do so to find out why the Bill, in Clause 7, reads:
ending on such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council appoint, being a date not later than the end of the two years beginning with the end of the war period.
It seems to me that the sooner we get back to the Wheat Commission the better, and I do not know why we have to wait two years. It is one of the good things to which everybody connected with agriculture would like to get back. There is another reason. What is wanted at the present time, and in peace-time, is to give farmers confidence that they can grow wheat and not be messed about. They know that the Wheat Commission treated them very fairly, and they were satisfied with it. The farmers do not know what a Government after the next election may put forward for the price of wheat, but they remember that after war the farmer is let down and is thrown to the wolves. If the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) could not stop the abolition of the Corn Production Act, what Prime Minister is going to be stronger than he? After a war the Government are always faced with the cry of cheap food and this has always destroyed the agricultural industry. It is not until one is in a situation like to-day that one can approve the value of the Wheat Commission. The farmer would have much more confidence if he knew that, as soon as the war was over, and D.O.R.A. was done away with, he could go back to one of the things that has been working well, and that is the Wheat Commission. I would like to


know what is in the mind of the Government in this Sub-section when a period of two years is included.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Colville: Perhaps I might answer in this way, for I understand that the Amendment is put down for clarification. When the period of suspension ends, the provisions of the Wheat Act come into force again. It will be impracticable to bring into operation the Wheat Act procedure for the collection of quota payments and making of deficiency payments in the middle of the cereal year, since the whole machinery functions on the basis of estimates made for the cereal year as a whole. It is essential that the period of suspension should end with the close of the cereal year, that is, 31st July. Before the Wheat Act procedure can begin to function time will have to be allowed for the committee referred to earlier in the Sub-section to report whether any operation of the standard price is desirable. The committee is brought back into being and given time to report on the alterations of the standard price which will revert to 10s. per cwt. The Wheat Commission will also require some time before the beginning of the cereal year to revive machinery for the collection of quota payments. Suppose that the Emergency Powers Defence Act expired on 30th June. in any one year. If this Amendment were accepted, it would mean that Part I of the Bill would cease to have effect on 30th June the following year—a year later—and there would be thus a gap in that year of one month when the Wheat Act would not really function. The alternative would be to end the period of suspension on 31st July in the same year as that in which the Emergency Powers Defence Act expired. This would give no time for the committee to report on the standard price. Therefore, to be on the safe side, it is necessary to provide for two years. But that does not mean that the provisions of the Bill will remain in operation for two years if the period of suspension can be brought to an end at an earlier time. The hon. Member will be aware that the expression "war period" is used, and that does not necessarily mean a long period after hostilities. We are anxious to bring back the peace-time machinery as soon as possible, but we must, for technical reasons, have this latitude.

Brigadier-General Brown: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill

CLAUSE II.—(Amendment as to ploughing grants.)

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I beg to move, in page 7, line 20, at the end, to insert "or the next following."
The purpose of the Amendment is to give retrospective effect to the provisions of Clause 12, which also relate to grants in respect of the ploughing up of land for 1939 and any subsequent year in the war period. It applies to ploughing grants to smallholdings in Scotland where landholders share in common grazing.
Amendment agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: I beg to move, in page 7, line 27, after "(a)," to insert "(b)."
This Amendment stands with the following Amendment in my name, to insert, at the end of line 31:
(b) that at the time when the ploughing up was begun the land had been under grass for a period of five years or more.
The object is to enable land which has been under grass for five years to qualify for the £2 an acre subsidy. The Government are proud of the success of their ploughing-up campaign, and perhaps on paper there is a certain amount of satisfaction to be derived from it. No one who has seen much of the land which is being ploughed up, however, can be under any illusion as to the possibility of growing crops on that land for certainly two to three years. Therefore the success of the scheme on paper is much greater than the success of the scheme in actual fact is likely to be. Fifteen years ago a lot of very unsuitable land was ploughed up, and that is the land which the farmer allowed to go down to grass again. The Milk Marketing Board started to operate in 1932, but a great many farmers did not realise that milk production would pay them until as late as 1934 or 1935. To qualify for the £2 an acre subsidy land had to be ploughed in 1933, but many farmers did not realise


that milk production would pay them and much of that land was under the plough until 1934 or 1935. The land which they left down for grass is very often the land near the farm which is easily worked and which, if ploughed up to-day, would be much more likely to produce crops in the near future. The land which is being ploughed up is in many instances land on which it will not be possible to produce crops at present.
I hope that the answer of the Minister will not be that the land near the farm is producing good grass and that, therefore, it would be a pity to plough it up, because the farmer has no obligation on him to plough up this land and he will not do so unless he believes he could put it to better use by putting it down to grain. Although I have no illusions about the perfection of my farmers and I do not wish to flatter them, I am content to trust in their good sense on agricultural topics more readily than I am to trust to the success of the agricultural policy of the Government as we have seen it develop in recent times. If I have sufficient support, I intend to press my Amendment to a Division. I believe that I have the support of a large number of farmers and county agricultural committees.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Price: There is a good deal to be said for the Amendment, and I am inclined to support it. It is reasonable to reduce the time of qualification for the £2 an acre grant. We do not want only to see the ploughing up of old pastures which have got worn out and which would be better under the plough; we want also to see an improvement in the general standard of pastures. Like many others who have had to do with the agricultural industry in recent years, I have been much impressed by the work of Professor Sir George Stapledon. He has shown that not only the ploughing up of old grassland, but a general improvement of standard is required, and that the cultivation of grass is as important as the cultivation of arable crops. Fresh strains of grass, more vigorous and with more feeding value than those which are found in old pastures, must be introduced. I suggest that a system of short lays up to five years, as they have in parts of the East Coast of Scotland, should be introduced in England. We should,

therefore, aim to encourage the ploughing up of land which has been down, say, for five years, then the growing of arable crops for a certain number of years, and then back to pasture for another four or five years. In my practical experience in 1938, when in the West of England we had one of the worst droughts I remember, those pastures which had been ploughed up and laid down in the last five years stood the drought the best. The hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has a strong case for her Amendment, and I hope the Government will be able to tell us what better they can put in its place.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. De la Bère: I support the Amendment. It is clear that the Government must do much more for agriculture and must do it soon. The case has been put clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), and the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) has assisted us considerably. After all, if the Amendment is accepted, it only makes it permissive; it does not make it obligatory on the farmer to do it. The fanner is the best judge of whether it should be done. How do the Government justify asking for more and more arable land and then giving no assistance to the farmer who is ready to do it? The time for self-deception is past. The Government are living in a little world of their own completely detached from the requirements of agriculture. I hope this Amendment will be carried to a Division and that the Government will be made to realise at last that we are sick and tired of these pettifogging measures which do nothing really to assist agriculture, but are a pretence and a hollow mockery.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: While I agree with the reasons which have already been given, I want to advance another. The present system of limiting the subsidy to land which has been down to grass for seven years is unfair to those farmers in the West and North of England, and particularly in Scotland, who have practised for a long time the Scotch rotation, leaving their grass down for considerable periods and taking the plough round the farms so that grass lies for about three years or more and is then ploughed up. A farmer who is on a rotation of that sort and has been ploughing steadily and consistently has very little grass which


has been down for seven years. When the representative of the county agricultural committee calls at a farm the farmer is compelled to plough up about 10 per cent. of his grass, but he will probably have no grass which qualifies for the subsidy. He feels that it is hard that the farmer who, after the last war or in the depression of 1931, or at some previous time, laid down the whole of his farm to grass should now be paid to do what the good farmer has been doing all along. That hardship is making the work of county committees in the North of England and Scotland very difficult. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I know for certain that that is the case in two counties, because I am a member of a district committee and I know the details. Only last week-end I heard the complaint from all the farmers I met that the allocation of the grant was unfair because it penalised the man who had been ploughing regularly.
I would like to ask a question, which is a practical one to me as a member of a district committee. When exactly does the seven years' period date from? Is it from the year in which the grass seeds were sown underneath the corn crop? If it is sown this spring will it qualify for subsidy, whereas if it was sown in the autumn it will not qualify? Has the grassland become a year older in the last six months? In what year must the grass seeds have been sown in order to qualify for the subsidy? If the Amendment were accepted it would give every farmer in the North and West of England the opportunity of choosing more suitable fields to plough, irrespective of the date on which they were laid down. The present arrangement means that badland is being ploughed out when better land could be ploughed to grow the crops which will be needed.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I find myself in difficulty over the Amendment because the substantive Clause substitutes new paragraphs (a) and (d) for the existing paragraphs (a) and (d) in the 1939 Act. The Amendment adds a new paragraph (b), with the principle of which I have considerable sympathy, but nothing is said in the Amendment about what is to be done with the existing paragraph (b) in the 1939 Act. If the Amendment is passed, we shall have two paragraphs (b). This

is a legalistic argument, but at the same time I do think it necessary to draw the attention of the Committee to what this Amendment suggests. It would be very much wiser to withdraw it now and try to get the substance of it into an Amendment at a later stage.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: I hope the hon. Lady will press this Amendment to a Division if it becomes necessary, but I think that will hardly be the case if the Minister will reflect as to the actual position in the countryside at the moment. This is not an Amendment devised to pull more money out of this Bill; under it not another penny need be spent. It is an Amendment devised to meet the real position of county war agricultural committees who are called upon to face the ploughing up of two classes of land, one of which they know perfectly well is the better of the two for the purpose the Government have in mind, but, because of the monetary inducement offered by the Government, they have no option but to fall in with the farmers' desire to get the £2, and they plough up the wrong class of land. That is a serious position. It is so serious that the Ministry must be aware of it. At this moment they are failing to get their sugar beet acreage contracted for by thousands and thousands of acres. Why? Because the season is wrong? Not a bit of it; farmers can contract to deal with sugar beet acreage by signing a paper which does not affect their present operations. It is not the weather; it is the fact that they know they have committed themselves to such a ploughing-up that they hesitate to land themselves with new responsibilities, such as labour, later on.
This ploughing-up campaign has introduced an element into a very difficult season which is causing the whole farming community to realise they are heading for a crisis, and anything the Government can do at this moment to ease the problem of what land to plough will be a very definite contribution to the success of their ploughing-up campaign. If you lower the qualification to five years you will bring into cultivation land which was under the plough at a more recent date than land which the farmer had to let go. The land which has gone out of cultivation in the last five years has been land which the farmer used as arable land as long as


he found it possible to do so. Therefore, you would be actually reducing the difficulties without really adding to the cost of your scheme if you accepted this Amendment. I hope the Government, in the interests of their own scheme, will accept the Amendment.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I intervene only because I do not think a representative of agricultural Scotland has yet taken part in this brief Debate. I am sure my right hon. Friend, with his knowledge of Scottish agriculture, will realise that the arguments in favour of this Amendment are quite overwhelming. He knows Scottish agriculture as well as anybody, and he knows what Scottish farmers have been doing during recent years. He knows also that if this Amendment is accepted the good farmer who has done his best in ploughing up his land, whereas other farmers have simply let their land go down, will derive greater benefits from this Bill. He knows equally that the man who is really in a position to judge as to which is the best land to plough up is the farmer himself. During the last three or four desperate years some farmers have been obliged to let land go down which otherwise they would never have done. It is quite obvious that in the interests of the country that is land which ought to be ploughed up first, because it will produce the crops first, and the most derelict land should come later on, if it should be necessary. While I dare say there is something in the somewhat formalistic legal arguments addressed to the Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) I am sure my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment would agree to withdraw it provided my right hon. Friend the Minister would agree in principle to reduce the period to five years, and to take the necessary steps in order to do so either to-day or at a later stage. If he is unable to do that, then I think we shall, have rather a "sticky" Division.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I can assure the Committee that it was no question of a legal or formalistic argument that made it impossible for me to accept the Amendment. The policy of ploughing up land which has been down to grass for seven years was adopted deliberately for the

purpose of bringing that land into cultivation. I know the rotation system of Scotland very well. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has no need to remind me that this proposal would put more money into the Scottish farmers' pockets. It would be no burden or anxiety to them to plough up land that has been out of cultivation for five years. The question is, is that the best way to apply this money in the war effort? I want to put one or two reasons to the Committee why it is difficult for me to accept the Amendment. I do assure them that our object is to apply this money to the best purpose. Land which has been sown to grass within a period of seven years ought to be capable of yielding satisfactory arable crops, and the extra help which we are giving for the purpose of enabling the farmer to bring his land into a state of fertility should not be so necessary in the case of land down to grass for a shorter time.
A further consideration is this. Under the ordinary system of farming adopted almost universally in Scotland, and widely in some parts of England it is the practice to provide for crops under a rotation of three to six years, and this period is based on sound and well-established agricultural practice. After six years it is known by experience that deterioration may start, and therefore it is necessary, following the principles of good husbandry, to give an incentive to farmers to break up the land that has been down to grass for seven years, because by doing so it is possible to obtain better utilisation of that land. Another argument is this. There is a great deal of land that has been down to grass for seven years and which ought to be ploughed up in order that the fullest advantage may be taken of our soil.

Mr. MacLaren: Whose soil?

Mr. Colville: I will argue that another time; I am thinking in terms of land which will produce food. If we want to get land ploughed up it is a very considerable change to alter this proposal from seven years to five years. Surveys that have been made by Sir George Stapledon and others have fully established that it is the older sward that needs renovation, and it would be unwise—and I hope the Committee will ponder over this—to encourage the breaking up of the younger pasture,


which is still in good condition and fully capable of producing succulent and good, nutritious grass, whether for grazing, for hay, or for grass drying.

Mrs. Tate: I am very sorry to interrupt, but I would like to point out that the cost to a farmer of ploughing up land really works out at £6 an acre. It can hardly be called encouraging him to plough up the wrong land if you give him a subsidy of £2an acre. He really is not going to plough up the land unless he is very certain it is going to be the most productive land; that would be a loss to himself.

Mr. Colville: The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the evidence is that until the present bad weather the farmer was doing it. If the Amendment were accepted and the period were reduced to five years I hold that there would be considerable danger that some farmers would plough up land that would more profitably be left as grassland for another year. My hon. Friend said, "Let the fanner decide." Well, the farmer is a practical man, but, as a Government which is applying money to this purpose, it is our duty to see how it can best be applied.

Mr. De la Bère: Do let us take this matter seriously. Either we want to get the maximum output from the farmer or we do not. Everything else is beside the point. This is merely permissive, it is not obligatory, and I cannot see what on earth these hesitations lead to. The whole thing is absolutely preposterous.

Mr. Colville: I think the hon. Member should himself take this more seriously. No war agricultural committee in Scotland has urged this change, and I am led to believe also that there has been no general urge for such a change from agricultural committees in England and Wales.

Mr. Price: Certain committees in England have made representations.

Mr. Colville: None that I know of. Certainly no general representations have been made. I do consider it would be wrong and unjustifiable to pay a farmer for what he would do himself without any financial assistance. I have argued this matter not from any formalistic view, but from the experience of the Department. There does not seem to be any general demand at all, and the seven year proposal is a practical method of bringing into fruitfulness land which at

present is not doing its best in the national effort.

Mr. Lambert: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the question of the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts)? For example, under ordinary circumstances the grass seed would be sown in the coming spring, but it will not come into bearing until next year, 1941. Does the seven years date from the time of the sowing of the crop or from the time when it comes into bearing?

Mr. Colville: It dates from the sowing of the seed.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: The answer of the Secretary of State for Scotland was a disappointment and was contradictory with itself. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) will press this matter to a Division.

Mrs. Tate: I shall.

Mr. Davies: She need not be frightened by the legal niceties that have been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), because if anything has to be done to clear up any distinctions between one Clause and another, we can do that on the Report stage. I should have expected at a time like this, during war, that the dominant feeling would be in favour of any act or movement that would produce the most food for the country. We recollect how this proposal was introduced at a very late stage in March or April of 1939 by the Minister of Agriculture, but we realised then that he was not getting his own way. He must have made a really hard fight, but have been throttled down by the Treasury, as so many others have been, in any movement that they desired. At that time there were two discriminations. There was the present one between land which had not been ploughed for seven years, and land which had been ploughed within the seven years. Encouragement was given by a bribe of £2 to the bad farmer to begin farming well, but nothing was given to the farmer who had been doing his best.
If we want greater production now, let us encourage the good farmer as well as him who has neglected his land. Pressure has been brought to bear by the agricultural Members upon the Minister of Agriculture to extend the time.


Originally the farmer had to plough before the end of October to get the advantage of the subsidy. The Government had not then in mind a long-term scheme for the improvement of the land. The main part of the argument of the Secretary of State to-day concerned what was most beneficial for the improvement of the land in the future. I should have thought the main consideration would be what would produce the most food. I should have thought we would go out of our way to bribe the farmer to plough more land and get more food; but the Government are not dominated by that idea at all.

5.4 p.m.

Colonel Sir George Court hope: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate but, as a farmer myself, I have heard all these arguments of all parts of the country, citing practices so contrary to the practice to which I am accustomed, that I must say a word. Surely what the Government and all of us desire is that additional grassland should be ploughed up. Most of us in different parts of the country plough up a certain amount of grass year by year, in ordinary rotation. In my district, we go in for two-year layings. In parts of Scotland they go in for five-year layings, and in other parts for four-year layings. Rotation farmers, and every farmer, plough up a certain portion of grass to lay down in seed as part of their normal procedure; what is required is not merely to maintain that practice but, in the national interest to induce the farmers to plough more than they are now doing. It seems to me that, if the Amendment were carried, it would tend, in certain parts of the country, to give a subsidy to farmers for carrying out their normal rotation and for doing what they would do in any case. It would not induce them to add to the acreage of grass which they would plough up. From that point of view it would be a mistake to agree to the Amendment. We do not wish to waste Government money in inducing people to do what they would ordinarily do. We must try to induce them to plough more than they normally would. On balance, I believe that seven years is the right period.

Mr. Boothby: The Amendment would not prevent any farmer in Great Britain

from ploughing up all the land he possibly could. My right hon. and gallant Friend talked as though it would prevent the fanner from ploughing up, but, so far as I can see, it will make it easier for the farmer to plough up the really bad land.

Sir G. Courthope: It will enable him to draw subsidy for land that he would normally plough up.

Mr. Hicks: Is not the important point not how much land he ploughs up but what he can produce after he has ploughed up? It ought not to be £2 per acre for ploughing up. It is not a mere question of ploughing up but of what is produced afterwards.

Sir G. Courthope: That is perfectly true, but the arguments put in favour of the Amendment have been based on the assumption that the fanner will plough unsuitable land instead of suitable land, if the Amendment is carried. It would be a mistake to spend Government money in inducing him to do what he ought to do and would usually do in any case.

5.8 p.m.

Major Sir George Davies: It is difficult to dogmatise on a question like this, because conditions vary very much throughout the country. Like my namesake who spoke a moment ago, I think that the dominant consideration should be the maximum food production of the land during the emergency and immediately afterwards. I am a little dubious whether my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has hit the right nail on the head. We must not lose sight of the fact that grass is a very essential product of agriculture and that we might make a very serious mistake if, by legislation, we encouraged too much the ploughing up of grassland, when, from the point of view of food production, it might be better left as grass. I know areas in which the grass has a certain length of economic life to the advantage of the community, and it should not be interfered with. It should have another seven years' life as grassland. It is true that in some cases within the seven years you will encourage the ploughing up of what we call boundary land, which might not, in ordinary conditions, be ploughed up: but I take the view that, in the emergency, we must make it worth while to


pull that boundary land just over the edge and make it arable and productive. I do not think that that object will be achieved by the Amendment, and I find myself more in harmony with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope). We should reject this Amendment, in the interests of the maximum food supply.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: I listened carefully to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. It appeared to me that his argument was that, by reducing the term to five years, temptation would be offered to farmers generally to plough up very valuable grassland which would be better left to grass. Surely the consideration which the farmer would have in mind would be, which was the most suitable land for his own farming? He would not destroy really first-class grassland in order to get a subsidy of £2 an acre. There is another consideration. Surely the county agricultural committee would have a word to say in preventing the destruction of absolutely first-class grazing land. As regards my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) I listened with interest to his argument, which appeared to be that if we gave this subsidy there was the danger that, in some few places, it might be a waste of public money, as the farmer would plough up that land without the subsidy, in his usual rotation. The answer surely is that we are in an emergency when we need to grow every possible bit of food, and that it is better in a few rare cases to risk the waste of £2 an acre, if we get more land under food cultivation.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: As one representing a very considerable agricultural population in Scotland, I should like to say that I agree that the Government are playing with this question in a way that is actually dangerous. They are mixing two distinct policies that should not be mixed. Either they encourage the farmers to cultivate more grassland for the production of a greater amount of foodstuffs, or they pursue a policy of reclaiming land that has gone out of cultivation. In Scotland there is an enormous field for that second policy if the Government were prepared to pursue it, but they are not prepared to do so. They will not find any solution of the problem of the land that has gone

out of cultivation by this proposal of £2 per acre.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): We are discussing whether the period should be five or seven years, and not the general question of land that has gone out of cultivation.

Mr. Gallacher: I am sorry if I moved off the beaten track, but I was dealing with the presentation that was put by the Minister. He mixed up the two policies to which I referred, and that mixing will waste any efforts in this direction. I suggest that the Amendment should be accepted, in order to ensure that what is being pursued is a policy of encouraging fanners to plough more grassland in order to get more production. The other question should be left entirely out of it, to be dealt with separately—although it is of the very first importance.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I listened with very great care to what the Minister had to say. I am bound to think it is useless for any hon. Member to cite cases of grassland that has been down for four or six years and that ought to be ploughed up, and of other cases that ought not to be ploughed up. It is merely a matter of land cultivation in the particular instance. There are many cases of land that has been down for over seven years and is being ploughed up to-day—land which in all probability should not be ploughed up. That being the case, it seems to me that what we, as Members of the House of Commons, have to look at, is not whether an area would benefit under the seven years' provision or the five year'provision. We have to look at only one thing, and that is, what is going to produce most food for human consumption in this country? Suppose that, by reducing the period from seven years to five years, a certain amount of land was ploughed up that would have been more valuable as grass. There are the committees. If it went on on a very large scale, you could probably stop it. But many Members are aware that much land has been in grass for five or six years which would be much better ploughed up. Very often that is the case on farms where there is least capital available for ploughing up the land and producing crops. The Minister quite rightly thought that it would be a burden for the public purse.

Mr. Colville: I did not say so. It would not have that effect.

Mr. Williams: I am glad to have that admission.

Mr. Colville: I did not say that it would add to the public cost. I said that it was a question of directing public money to the quarter to which it should go.

Mr. Williams: At any rate, my right hon. Friend does not think this the best use for public money. But that is a very technical argument. The amount of public money involved cannot be very large. I suggest that on an occasion such as this, when practically the whole of agricultural opinion, with one or two exceptions, has been on one side—

Mr. Colville: There has been no representation made by any practical agriculturist in the country upon this.

Mr. Williams: I realise that; but that may be because the matter has never been thought of, and never dealt with. I quite see the position of the Government at the present time; but I would urge that when there is a chance of extending the amount of produce, when much land would undoubtedly benefit by this increased ploughing, it would be much better for the Government, after they have made a comparatively weak case against the Amendment, to accept the Amendment in principle, even if they cannot accept it entirely as it is worded. Then, they could go into the matter again, and see whether it is possible to extend the amount of ploughed land, below the seven years as well as above.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Colville: There are other reasons, which I did not give the Committee in my earlier speech, for not accepting the Amendment. I do not withdraw anything that I have said about my view that money is more wisely applied to ploughing up land which has been under grass for seven years, in the interests of food production; and in that I am supported by expert opinion. But I say also that it would cause chaos, at the present stage of the ploughing-up campaign, for us to adopt this Amendment. If this proposal were accepted, a most difficult situation would arise. Many farmers have ploughed up land which has been under grass for seven years, on the understanding that that was the land they would be urged

to plough up. If the period were now changed, in the month of February, to five years, the scheme would become quite unworkable. If a change is to be made—and I do not withdraw my view that a change is not desirable—it should be made at the beginning of a new ploughing-up season.

Mr. J. Morgan: Over large areas of the country February is the beginning of the ploughing-up season. Is it the Minister's argument that, had the farmers known that the period was going to be five years, they would have preferred to plough up other land than they are now ploughing up, and, therefore, that to change the period would create a controversy? The Minister will have to make his decision, either now or in the Autumn; and it would be better to make it now.

Mr. Colville: It would be literally impossible to carry out the survey at this time of the year. Apart from everything else, it would put an impossible task on the executive committees, who are already carrying out heavy work. I feel that, for the administrative reasons which I have explained, such a change would be quite impossible, and would cause considerable controversy. No body of opinion has asked for this change, either in Scotland or in England, and the experts on whose advice we have based this scheme assure us that there is still much land to be brought into cultivation, and that that can best be done by adhering to the seven-years'period.

Mr. C. Davies: Sir George Stapledon's statement referred to land for improvement, not land for cultivation.

Mr. Colville: I repeat again that if the change was made, it would cause chaos, for administrative reasons, and would result in turning valuable grass into ploughed-up land when there is much land covered by the seven-years' limit which ought to be ploughed up. I know that this would bring more money into circulation, into the farmers' pockets; I do not believe that it would add at all to the end that we have in view, which is an increase in food production in this country, and to do it in the middle of the ploughing-up season would produce an impossible situation. I am quite willing to discuss with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture all the points which have


been in favour of the change, for another season; but to make the change at the present time would not be in the interests of the country.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Does the Minister imply that, if this Amendment were not forced to a Division, he would be willing to consult the Minister of Agriculture, with a view to making some provision at a later stage of the Bill, so that he might be able to embody a proposal which would give effect to this Amendment, immediately after the present ploughing-up season? Perhaps we might come to an understanding on those terms.

Mrs. Tate: No.

Mr. Williams: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Lady. I myself do not trust this Government very far. I would tie them hand and foot before I made any concession to them. But the right hon. Gentleman did make a suggestion. What I would like to know is what he meant by saying that he was prepared to discuss the matter with his right hon. and gallant Friend. I think most of my hon. Friends would support the Amendment. They seem to think that it would give effect to the general desire much better than the Bill would as it stands. Not being a practical farmer, I take no stand. I am not impressed, however, by the right hon. Gentleman's argument that if we were to change horses in mid-stream it would cause confusion. He suggested that if farmers had had the opportunity of ploughing up five years' grass instead of seven years' grass, they would have relished the luxury. I do not know whether they would or not.

5.27 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: Before the Minister replies, there is a simple way to make sure what his words mean. I should be willing to withdraw the Amendment if I could have an assurance that there would be some definite date from which the five years' period would qualify for the subsidy, but I will take no vague promises of consultation with the Minister of Agriculture. We have had far too many vague promises of consultation. I thought one of the most extraordinary points of the Minister's extraordinarily weak reply—I do not mean to be impertinent—was when he told us that he had had no representations from the county agricultural com-

mittees, and that they would be placed in an impossible position if the Government accepted the Amendment. But there are in the House two members of county agricultural committees, who have given the strongest possible support to my Amendment.

Mr. J. Morgan: The Minister's reply is a thoroughly dangerous one. If he leaves the impression in the farmers' minds that, at some date in the future, this period is going to be reduced, he will create a disposition for the scheme to drag on, with nothing being done. The Government must decide, yes or no, at once, or else leave the matter alone.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member misunderstood me. I said that, for the reasons given, I did not think that the change was either desirable or practicable. I do not want to go over the arguments again, but I think they are quite conclusive to those who have to deal with this problem. I referred to the county committees, but I said that I was willing to consult with my right hon. and gallant Friend, who is prevented by illness from being here, on the advisability of a change for another season, for which legislation would be necessary and that the arguments used by hon. Members would be fully examined by us both. I cannot go further than that. But I am bound to conclude by saying that a change in the directions proposed would throw the whole of this year's ploughing-up campaign into confusion.

Lieut. Colonel Acland-Troyte: I do not wish to prolong the discussion or to repeat arguments which have already been used, but the Minister has several times stated that this Amendment, if carried, would put agricultural executive committees in an impossible position. I happen to be Chairman of my Area Sub-committee and I do not consider that it would make our task any more difficult or cause us any extra trouble.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I think that too much has been made of the administrative difficulty. The executive committee in the county which I know serve on the farmer an order to plough certain lands. They serve the order whether the farmer would get the subsidy on the land or not. The order is served on so many acres which the farmer has to plough. It is then up


to the farmer to apply for the subsidy. He has already applied for the subsidy for the land which has been down seven years. If the committee says he is to apply for land which has been down only five years he will now make an application in respect of that land. The two processes are entirely distinct. The farmer having made his application for subsidy, the executive committee or its representative has to certify the land is suitable and that it has been ploughed, but there is

Division No. 15.]
AYES.
[5.36 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Owen, Major G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Parker, J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pearson, A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Hardie, Agnes
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Banfield, J. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Barr. J.
Hicks, E. G.
Ridley, G.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Ritson, J.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Horabin, T. L.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Isaacs, G. A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
Jackson, W. F.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
John, W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sloan, A.


Cassells, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Leach, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.


Collindridge, F.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Marshall, F.
White, H. Graham


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Martin, J. H.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mathers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.
Williams. T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Wilmot, John


Gardner, B. W.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mort, D. L.



Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.
Mrs. Tate and Mr. De la Bere.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Oliver, G. H.





NOTES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Bird, Sir R. B.
Brooklebank, Sir Edmund


Albery, Sir Irving
Blair, Sir R.
Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C.(Newbury)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Apsley, Lord
Bossom, A. C.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Boulton, W. W.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Assheton, R.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Clarry, Sir Reginald

no difficulty whatever for the farmer who has not hitherto made an application for the subsidy if the regulations are now changed and he wishes to make application. I do not think that it would cause any administrative difficulty if he now applied for a subsidy for land which was not eligible previously.

Question put, "That '(b)' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 182.

Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Rowlands, G.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Salt, E. W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Culverwell, C. T.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Levy, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, K. M.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Denville, Alfred
Lipson, D. L.
Scott, Lord William


Drewe, C.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Duggan, H. J.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Duncan, J. A. L.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Dunglass, Lord
McCorquodale, M. S.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Ellis, Sir G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
McKie, J. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Emery, J. F.
Magnay, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Snadden, W. McN.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Somerset, T.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Fildes, Sir H.
Markham, S. F.
Spens, W. P.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Medlicott, Captain F.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Gledhill, G.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Touche, G. C.


Hambro, A. V.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Train, Sir J.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Harland, H. P.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Munro, P.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wakefield, W. W.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Higgs, W. F.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Holmes, J. S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Horsbrugh, Florence
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Pym, L. R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Radford, E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel G.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hunter, T.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Wragg, H.


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Keeling, E. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)



Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Robertson, D.
Mr. Grimston and Major Sir James Edmondson.


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14.—(Drainage of outlying land.)

The Deputy-Chairman: The first Amendment—in page 9, line 18, to leave out from "borough," to "is," in line 20—is out of order.

Mr. T. Williams: May I ask why this Amendment is out of order? I quite appreciate, Colonel Clifton Brown, that you have the choice of these Amendments and can rule Amendments out of order, and I should be greatly encouraged if you would state why this particular Amendment is out of order.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not usual to give reasons for Ruling an Amendment
out of order. Quite clearly this Amendment omits the limiting words which are in the Money Resolution. The Amendment would increase the area, and such an increase is not provided for in the Money Resolution. I am bound by the terms of the Money Resolution.

Mr. T. Williams: That seems to me to be an ample speech in favour of the Amendment if you had only seen fit to call it, namely, that there would be an extended area of land that might be drained under the terms of the Bill. I know that we were correct when we put the Amendment on the Order Paper, but I was not aware that the Amendment would be ruled out of order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will now appreciate that there was substance in the Amendment, and I believe I express the feeling of most Members in all parts of


the House when I say that an extension ought to take place. I presume that I am now called upon to move the second Amendment on the Order Paper.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 9, line 21, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
The Amendment is almost self-explanatory since the purport of it means that, where the war agricultural executive committee in any county find that the area of land that is proposed to be drained is capable of improvement by a drainage scheme, then the executive committee may request the catchment board to prepare a scheme. As far as I can see, if the catchment board do not feel disposed to comply with the request, then that is the end of this part of this Bill. I would be the last person to reflect adversely upon the catchment boards. I have every reason to compliment some of the catchment boards because they have done exceedingly fine work in certain parts of the country. Particularly can I compliment the catchment board in my part of Yorkshire, which has spent so much time, money and energy on the River Don with gratifying results. Catchments boards may be ready and anxious in some, and, perhaps, in all, parts of the country to comply with any requests made by the war agricultural executive committee, but others may be not so ready to do so. Therefore, what we are seeking here to-day is that when the war agricultural executive committee have discovered an area of land that ought to be restored to fertility by means of drainage, and their request to a catchment board is not complied with in a reasonable time, there should be some machinery, either through the Minister, the county or the executive committee, to insist upon these drainage schemes being carried through. In other words, there is no power in the Bill, so far as I can see, unless the right hon. Gentleman can show it to us either in Clause 10 of the 1930 Act, or under the terms of the 1937 Act, whereby a catchment board are obliged to comply with a request from the executive committee. We think that some powers of default ought to be taken to ensure that in this time of emergency the maximum area of land will be brought into cultivation.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am not quite sure to which Amendment the hon. Gentleman is referring. Is he also referring to his Amendment in line 26 to leave out "may" and insert "shall"?

Mr. Williams: I took it that the two Amendments would be discussed together.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Very well.

Mr. Williams: It would be folly to have two Debates on the same thing; first of all, whether an agricultural executive committee may request a catchment board or not; and, second, whether they may prepare a scheme or not. We want positive power and want the war agricultural executive committee, whatever landowners stand in the way, to request catchment boards to get on with the job. We want the executive committee to make that request, not that they may make that request. Having made the request we want them to have power to insist upon a catchment board preparing a scheme so that the land may be drained. I do not need to delay the Committee any longer. They have the sense of the two Amendments combined and I am moving the first so that the principle of both may be accepted.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. C. Davies: I hope this Amendment will be accepted, because I want to ask the Government what is their intention? Do they want land drained and improved, and want us to get into the position where we can utilise all the land possible in this country so as to grow more food, or do they not? As the Clause stands at the present moment there are about six probabilities that will have to be gone through before a drainage scheme is put into existence. May I direct attention to the first? Nothing is to happen until the war agricultural executive committee for the county, or county borough, consider that any agricultural land within the county or borough is capable of improvement. They have got to consider it and, having considered it, may not do anything. Having found that the land is capable of improvement by the execution of drainage works, as the Bill now stands they need do no more, but if they are moved to do more they may request the catchment board for any area, wholly or partly within the county or borough, to prepare and carry out a scheme. Having got through that you pass to Sub-section (2), where you get this:


After receiving such a request as respects any land the catchment board may prepare a scheme….
They need not. Having been bold enough to make a request to the catchment board they still need do nothing unless that "may" is turned into "shall." If the catchment board prepares a scheme it is to be submitted to the Minister for his approval. Thus you have the consideration of the executive, the determination of the catchment board, the inquiry by the Minister and his approval, and yet nothing need be done unless the catchment board, under Subsection (4), decide to execute the work. So you have all these probabilities before the work is actually put into operation.
We ought to have a standard throughout the country. This is a national and not a local effort. Those who have had experience of local government are aware of the tremendous discrepancies between one authority and another. One will be acting and exercising all the powers that Parliament has given, and the other one, so long as the powers are permissible, will do little or nothing. We have seen it in such matters as housing and education. Do the Government want to see the national improvement of land? If so, they cannot leave it in this permissive form. What I would like is that this will be turned, not into a permission, but into a duty put upon the war agricultural executive committee and catchment boards throughout the country, so that when the Minister approves a scheme for the drainage of land it shall be put into operation.

5.53 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I would like to assure the Committee that the catchment boards intend to carry out Clause 14 to the utmost of their power and that the words "may" or "shall" will not make all that difference. I think the hon. Member who moved the Amendment knows that the catchment boards will do the utmost in their power. I was interested to hear how the scheme will probably work. Quite possibly the initiative will come from the catchment boards, who have the machinery, maps, and engineering knowledge of the areas which require drainage. Very likely they will tell the committees in their areas that there is a piece of land to be drained. Either they, or the war committees, will

mark out the water course which can best be drained and the areas which will come under any scheme. I can assure the Committee that there will be great co-operation between the catchment boards and the war agricultural executive committee. The question is whether there should be compulsion. So far as the catchment boards are concerned any hope of that will in my opinion be a question of money. There are certain catchment boards overdrawn at the bank and these are the kind which will find it difficult to carry out a scheme. That is a matter for which there is machinery under Clause 14 of the Bill. So far as the solvent boards are concerned I am convinced they will carry out this work, provided labour is available. It is a question of labour which matters. It is no use changing the word "may" to "shall" if there is not the labour or machinery to carry it out. I think it is just as well to leave in the word "may" and not put in the word "shall," as I think the work will be done.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: I want to support the Amendment because I feel that the county committees need all the support they can have at the present time in dealing with this particular aspect of the problem. As the Clause deals with certain outlying sections of land that have been overlooked and which the county war agricultural committees know to be areas that are holding up the proper development, for food purposes, of certain other areas of land, I feel that the Minister must have made, in his Estimate, the necessary financial provision for it. Therefore, there cannot be any difficulty about requiring either a war agricultural committee or a catchment board to carry out their duties if the financial provision is sufficient. My feeling is that if a war agricultural committee does reach a conclusion that this work should be carried out, then at that stage the Ministry should come behind it and say it must be done, because they are charged with a particularly difficult job. They have only a limited time in which to carry out the job; they are working to a season, not to a war, and if they should come to the conclusion that their work is being held up by the lack of drainage in a limited area of land, and leave a catchment board with any ground whatsoever for giving up the job, then


I feel that powers should be here for the war agricultural committee to require a catchment board to produce a scheme and proceed with the work.
I congratulate the Government on approaching the drainage question at all. There are many farmers and occupiers of land who would proceed with drainage on their own account if certain smaller arterial drainage systems were dealt with by the catchment board. In clearing up this aspect of the drainage question you will remove a ground of grievance among many farmers if they know that the war agricultural committee can say to them, "We want you to get on with your particular aspect of the job as we have put right what you have so long complained about." Further, the Minister should accept the Amendment because he himself is not accepting much responsibility for drainage under the Bill. That is a serious omission. He is so devolving the responsibility on local authorities that it is up to him to see that, at any rate, the powers which he is pushing away from himself on to the local authorities are fully exercised. This is a small field, a well-defined field and a financially provided field, and if a war executive committee make it plain that their work is being impeded by a hold-up of drainage work the Government should empower them to require it to be done.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: This is an important Clause because under it a great deal of work should be done, that is if the Clause is framed in such a way that the work will get done. But the extent to which it is permissive shakes one's confidence as to how much is really going to be done. The war executive agricultural committee is really responsible for the war effort of the Ministry of Agriculture in the county, and if they consider that any agricultural land is capable of improvement they may make a request to the catchment board. That is vague. Is it not the duty of the war agricultural executive committee to look for land which should produce more and, when it has found such land, to make up its mind? If it is clear that the land can be improved at a reasonable cost, is it not its duty to report the matter to the catchment board and to see that it is done?
As to the second Amendment of the hon. Member, the rest of the Clause is so hedged in by qualifications that the substitution of the word "shall" for the word "may" does not make any substantial difference. A catchment board may make a scheme, it may put it up to the Minister, and he may approve of it, but even then the Minister has no power to see that any scheme is carried out. It is all permissive on the part of the war executive agricultural committee and catchment board. Although the second Amendment might strengthen the Clause a little I have not much confidence that it will make much difference.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Although the two Amendments referred to by the hon. Member deal substantially with the same point I shall have to address slightly different arguments to the Committee in respect of each of them. As to the first Amendment, to make it obligatory on a war executive agricultural committee, if they think any agricultural land in their district is capable of improvement by drainage, to request the catchment board to prepare a scheme, the first observation I want to make is this, that it is our usual practice, where you have to carry out work with the help of local authorities, and you really cannot carry out work without their help and co-operation, not to flourish the big stick or to put in mandatory powers to compel them to carry out the work. It has been usual to put forward permissive legislation of this kind.

Mr. C. Davies: In war-time?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Yes, even in war-time. If you set up important bodies you must rely upon them, you must have confidence that they will carry out the work, and, indeed, they are much more likely to carry out their duties more vigorously in war-time than in peace-time. It has always been our practice to rely on the good will and co-operation of local bodies to carry out their duties, and I do not think it is reasonable that we should of necessity use mandatory terms. For that reason I think it would be unwise if it went out from this Committee that there was any suspicion or doubt that war agricultural executive committees will not carry out their duties and that we are determined to compel them to carry them out.

Mr. J. Morgan: Why do you compel a fanner to plough up his land?

Mr. Ramsbotham: That is a different point altogether. I think it would be unwise to create the impression in any local authority upon whose co-operation we rely that no reliance is to be placed on their willingness to carry out their work, and that mandatory terms have to be employed. The county war agricultural executive committees are extremely active bodies and doing a great deal of magnificient work. I have no fear at all that they will not carry out the functions which have been entrusted to them. That is the first general observation I want to make. My second observation is that I doubt whether the Amendment would have the effect which is desired. It is only where a war agricultural executive committee consider that the work can be done that they shall request a catchment board to do it. Suppose we have a recalcitrant committee—I do not believe they exist—who are not carrying out their duties as they should. That committee can perfectly well avoid obligations under the Amendment by saying that they do not think a scheme is necessary; and it is unwise to put mandatory powers which you cannot carry out into a Bill. Therefore, I think it would be unfortunate to make the Clause mandatory. If we want the maximum of willing and voluntary co-operation on the part of these local bodies it is doubtful whether we should get that if we compelled them to carry out their duties.
As to the second Amendment—to compel a catchment board to prepare a scheme in certain circumstances—the reason for that is the fear that some catchment boards will not perform their functions under the Clause. My belief is that there is no ground for that fear. I think catchment boards will fulfil their duty. But suppose we put in the word "shall," all that a catchment board have to do to avoid complying with this mandatory word is to say that in their opinion the work will exceed the amount laid down in the Bill or that in their opinion the value of the land will not be increased. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) does not seem to have a good opinion of catchment boards.

Mr. C. Davies: My complaint is that there may be one catchment board which

is active and another which is not. I do not suggest that they would not give an honest opinion as to the value of the land from the improvement. I am sure that they would.

Mr. Ramsbotham: If a catchment board do not want to carry out the work they can come to the conclusion that the land would not be improved or that the cost was excessive. And there may be other considerations which they might say make it undesirable at that moment to prepare a scheme. There may be certain drainage which has not been completed and which the catchment board consider should be completed before a scheme is prepared. I see no advantage in putting a catchment board in that position, and, again taking the general view, I think it is wise, in dealing with these important bodies, to rely upon their sense of responsibility and their desire to do just as much for our war effort as any hon. Member could possibly desire.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: After listening to the speech of the First Commissioner of Works I am inclined to think that his arguments are so weak that we must press this matter to a Division. What he has said is that in dealing with local authorities we always pass permissive legislation; they may build a school or a house. In this country we have very active, energetic and progressive local authorities, and we have those which are hopelessly backward. I am speaking with some experience after roaming about this country. Last year I crossed from Peterborough to Northampton. I recollect passing through Finland in 1933. I thought Finland had more lakes than any other country; at least, I thought so until I crossed from Peterborough to Northampton. I discovered that there were infinitely more lakes between Peterborough and Northampton than I had seen in Finland. Apparently somebody has power to drain that area, but the drainage has not been done. That is an example of the position in many parts of the country. I am certain there is not an hon. Member who would challenge the bona fides of the War Agricultural Executive Committees. These committees are doing a good job of work, and we do not want to be unkind in our remarks about what they may or may not be doing; but is it too much to insist that if there is an area which ought to be


drained, so that the land can be used to produce the maximum quantity of food during the war the committees should get on with the job?
There may be some hon. Members who are hesitant about replacing the word "may" by "shall," but in the case of the soldier it is not a question of "may"; the soldier is told that he must turn up at a certain spot at a certain time on a certain day and be prepared to shoot and be shot at. There is no question of being finicky about the man whose life is at stake. I do not think the members of the catchment boards, who are largely representatives of the big local authorities, would take it amiss if the duty were imposed upon them in cases where it could be proved that the piece of land ought to be drained. If a war agricultural committee wanted to be naughty and nasty, they would never say that, in the terms of the Bill, land within the county or borough was capable of improvement, but I do not think the members of the committees are the type of men and women who would do that. It might be that a catchment board would never prepare a scheme without the scheme exceeding the £5 maximum contained in Clause 14, Sub-section (2, a), but there is an Amendment on the Paper to remove that limitation of £5, and if the Amendment were accepted the limitation would not apply. If hon. Members are really serious, and want all the powerful interests to be set on one side so that the only thing that will matter during the war will be the maximum production of food on the maximum area of land, they will support the Amendment. I do not think the war agricultural committees would complain, and I do not think that, on the whole, the catchment boards would complain. If, as a result of the Amendment being accepted, we set only one or two recalcitrant catchment boards at work, and they did their job as faithfully as the soldiers do theirs, the Amendment would be justified. I hope hon. Members will accept the Amendment.

Division No. 16.]
AYES.
[6.22 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Blair, Sir R.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund


Albery, Sir Irving
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Brooke,H. (Lewisham, W.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bossom, A. C.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Assheton, R.
Boulton, W. W.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Briscoe, Capt, R. G.
Clarry, Sir Reginald

Mr. R. Morgan: I should like one matter to be made clear. The whole of this Clause seems to me to be of a permissive character. If the Amendment were accepted, would it apply to the whole of the Clause?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I understand that if the word "shall" were inserted, it would be applicable only where it was inserted.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: Although I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendments, I find some difficulty in supporting them—at any rate, the first one. As the Clause stands at present, the war agricultural executive committee, if they
consider that any"—
I emphasise the word "any"—
agricultural land within the county or borough, but not within any drainage district other than a catchment area, is capable of improvement by the execution of drainage works, they may….
In many counties there is a vast amount of land which has been neglected as regards drainage for many generations. As the Clause stands at present, it gives the committees a selective power. There is this vast mass of undrained land, and as a result of the word "may," the committees may select; but surety, if the word "may" were replaced by "shall," it would make it mandatory on the committees at once to consider and issue instructions to the catchment boards dealing with all land outside the drainage districts. It seems to me that this would impose too immediate and too general a burden on the committees. I suggest that it would be better to retain the word "may" as regards the war agricultural executive committees, and, if it was so desired, to insert the word "shall" in the second Amendment as regards catchment boards.
Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 138.

Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Soo'sh Univs.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Salt. E. W.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Samuel M. R. A.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Leech, Sir J. W.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Culverwell, C. T.
Levy, T.
Scott, Lord William


Davidson, Viscountees
Lindsay, K. M.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lipson, D. L.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


De la Bère, R.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Denville, Alfred
Loftus, P. C.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Drewe, C.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Dunglass, Lord
M'Connell, Sir J.
Snadden, W. McN.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerset, T.


Ellis, Sir G.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Emery, J. F.
McKie, J. H.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Magnay, T.
Spens, W. P.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Storey, S.


Etherton, Ralph
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fildes, Sir H.
Markham, S. F.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Medlicott, Captain F.
Tate, Mavis C.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Glodhill, G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cower, Sir R. V.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Touche, G. C.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Train, Sir J.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wakefield, W. W.


Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hambro, A. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Harbord, Sir A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Harland, H. P.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Wells, Sir Sydney


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Pym, L. R.
White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Radford, E. A.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Higgs, W. F.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Holdsworth, H.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wragg, H.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Robertson, D.



Hume, Sir G. H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)



Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Rowlands, G.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.


Keeling, E. H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.





NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hicks, E. G.


Adamson, Jennie L- (Dartford)
Dobbie, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Adamson, W. M.
Ede, J. C.
Hollins, A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Horabin, T. L.


Ammon, C. G.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Isaacs, G. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jackson, W. F.


Banfield, J. W.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Jagger, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Barr, J.
Foot, D. M.
John, W.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Gallacher, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Batey, J.
Gardner, B. W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Kirby, B. V.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Kirkwood, D.


Benson, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lawson, J. J.


Bevan, A.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Leach, W.


Buchanan, G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Leonard, W.


Burke, W. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Leslie, J. R.


Cassells, T.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Lunn, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Cocks, F. S.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
McEntee, V. La T.


Collindridge, F.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McGhee, H. G.


Cove, W. G.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) 
MacLaren, A.


Daggar, G.
Hardie, Agnes
Maclean, N.


Dalton, H.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Mainwaring, W. H.







Marshall, F.
Price, M. P.
Thurtle, E.


Martin, J. H.
Pritt, D. N.
Tinker, J. J.


Maxton, J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Tomlinson, G.


Messer, F.
Ridley, G.
Viant, S. P.


Milner, Major J.
Riley, B.
Walkden, A. G.


Montague, F.
Ritson, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Sexton, T. M.
Westwood, J.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Shinwell, E.
White, H. Graham


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Silverman, S. S.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Mort, D. L.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Sloan, A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Wilmot, John


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Owen, Major G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Woodburn, A.


Paling, W.
Sorensen, R. W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Parker, J.
Stephen, C.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Parkinson, J. A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)



Pearson, A.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 9, line 26, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."

Division No. 17.]
AYES.
[6.32 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cower, Sir R. V.
Medlicott, Captain F.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Albery, Sir Irving
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Assheton, R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Baxter, A. Beverley
Hambro, A. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Harbord, Sir A.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Blair, Sir R.
Harland, H. P.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. G.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boulton, W. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Boyce, H. Leslie
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Pym, L. R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Higgs, W. F.
Radford. E. A.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Holdsworth, H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Robertson, D.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Keeling, E. H.
Rowlands, G.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Salt, E. W.


Davidson, Viscountess
Leech, Sir J. W.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


De la Bère, R.
Levy, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, K. M.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Denville, Alfred
Lipson, D. L.
Scott, Lord William


Drewe, C.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Selley, H. R.


Dunglass, Lord
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Ellis, Sir G.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Emery, J. F.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
McKie, J. H.
Snadden, W. McN.


Etherton, Ralph
Magnay, T.
Somerset, T.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Adam
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Fildes, Sir H.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Spens, W. P.


Fremantle, Sir F. E,
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Markham, S. F.
Storey, S.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Gledhill, G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 134.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Wakefield, W. W.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Sutcliffe, H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Tasker, Sir R. I.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Tate, Mavis G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Wragg, H.


Thomas, J. P. L.
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Touche, G. C.
Wayland, Sir W. A



Train, Sir J.
Wells, Sir Sydney
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tree, A. R. L. F.
White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.


Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.



Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Williams, C. (Torquay)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hardie, Agnes
Pearson, A.


Adamson, W. M.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hicks, E. G.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Barnes, A. J.
Hollins, A.
Ridley, G.


Barr, J.
Horabin, T. L.
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Isaacs, G. A.
Ritson, J.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Jackson, W. F.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Bevan, A.
John, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sloan, A.


Cassells, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Collindridge, F.
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N.
Tomlinson, G.


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Martin, J. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mathers, G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
White, H. Graham


Foot, D. M.
Milner, Major J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Wilmot, John


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Woodburn, A.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Owen, Major G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Paling, W.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Parker: I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, to leave out paragraph (a).
During the Second Reading Debate the opinion was expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and I think also by other Members in all parts of the House, that the limitation of £5 an acre which is imposed by paragraph (a) of this Clause is much too restrictive. I think it was generally felt that, though the provision which could be made within that limit migh meet the needs of drainage schemes in some cases, there were many other cases which it would not meet. The

argument was advanced that this was an average figure and that if you had a large drainage scheme, the cost would possibly work out at a figure lower than £5 per acre. I suggest to the Committee, however, that there will be a number of cases in which this figure of £5 an acre will be nothing like sufficient. For example, in one case it may be desired to drain a fairly small and fertile area in which, in order that a satisfactory drainage scheme may be carried out, a larger grant would be necessary. Again, the drainage of a particular limited area might assist the drainage of much wider areas, or might prevent wider areas from getting into a


state of bad drainage. Therefore my hon. Friends on these benches, and I think also hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, feel that this limitation is very unsatisfactory and ought to be removed. 
When the Land Drainage Act, 1930, was passed a Clause was inserted in it which embodied this figure of £5 an acre. I have not the slightest doubt that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite will quote that Section of the Act of 1930, but I should like to point out that conditions now are very different from what they were 10 years ago. In 1930 we were at peace and we were in the middle of a slump. Since then the cost of drainage has risen. Again, it is even more urgent now to get on with the job of drainage than it was then. Furthermore, much of the land to which the grant was then intended to apply has been drained since that date, and we are seeking now to have drainage schemes applied to areas rather different from those intended to be covered by a Section of the Act of 1930. I hope, therefore, it will be possible for the Government to agree to the omission of this paragraph and to allow larger grants to be given than this limiting provision would permit.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I think the unfavourable views which were expressed by many hon. Members on this Bill during the Second Reading Debate had application not only to the Measure in general but to this Clause in particular. There is nothing in the Bill which in any way creates a confident impression that the Government really want to secure all that the Bill professes to achieve. Within my short Parliamentary experience, this Bill represents almost the limit in restriction and timidity. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), speaking a few minutes ago, said that drainage authorities and catchment boards would have to be selective in their operations. They will have to be more than merely selective. They will have to be exclusive and selective if they are to face this enormous problem armed in the left hand, so to speak, with £380,000 but with a limit of £5 on each acre of the selected area. In those circumstances, nobody would wish to be a member of a catchment board.
I think we ought to know before we have finished with Clause 14 what is

the Government's own measure of this problem. Do they know, and have they any accurate estimate of, (a) the number of acres waterlogged requiring main drainage and, (b), the number of acres probably cultivable needing field drainage? Have they any accurate estimate of the total amount in connection with the global figure which is really requisite in order that under both these headings every acre of either uncultivable land, or under-cultivable land can be put into an adequate and proper state? It must seem to the Committee that keeping these restrictions in the Bill makes the Clause almost meaningless. The Clause for two or three inherent reasons is not going to touch the problem, and in its present form there will be a severe handicap at a time of great emergency, when it is imperative that everything possible should be done in order to bring into cultivation whole areas of land. In face of a situation like this, parsimony and meanness become an unforgivable crime. Why is there this figure of £5? It is a pretty round figure, and I understand people sometimes gamble in £5 notes; but how has it become to be this rather pretty figure, and why is it not £4 17s. 6d. or £5 2s. 6d.? What process of scientific calculation has arrived at this figure, and how can it be justified?
There is a second question which is of even more importance. If it appears to a catchment board that whole areas of land require to be drained, and can be drained, not for £5, but for £5 1s., is the work to be prohibited? Is any figure above this chosen figure of £5 to be a prohibitive figure against operations which a catchment board thinks are absolutely necessary? I repeat again that the Clause is full of timidity and restrictions which are characteristic of the Bill itself. Unless the Bill is amended it cannot command the confidence of Members of the Committee.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: There is one Question I should like to ask which seems very important in connection with this Subsection and the whole Clause. What is the estimate of the Government of the amount of land which ought to be drained? It is a vital question, and as far as I can remember we have had no estimate whatever in connection with this Bill of the total amount of land which


is in need of draining and which can be drained at a reasonable cost. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) spoke about an area between Peterborough and Northampton which he visited. I travelled from London to the North of England by the L.M.S. nearly a week ago, and for the first two hours of the journey I should say that there was more land under water than above. We know that times are exceptional and that there has been a lot of snow, but a vast amount of land in this area needs draining of a fundamental character. I suppose it is very fortunate that the farmers in that district are behind in their ploughing, and perhaps it is better that they have waited until the floods have subsided. That area probably requires the main channels of the rivers deepened and widened on a very extensive scale, if it is the intention of the Government to prevent that sort of thing. If the Government have no hopes of doing it, we ought to know, and we could then understand why this Sub-section limits the amount to be spent to £5. If land of that sort is not to be flooded every year when there is snow or exceptional rain then a large sum will have to be spent.
What is the total area which requires to be drained in this country by all methods, and what does the Government expect and hope to be done under this Bill? If we turn to the Preamble, which is a very important part of the Bill, we find that the total sum expected to be spent under this Clause is £230,000.If it costs £5 an acre, then, if my arithmetic is right, it will be possible to drain about 46,000 acres. It may be possible if it only costs £2 10s. to drain nearly 100,000 acres. I would ask, therefore, what is the intention of the Government and how many acres do they intend should be drained? I presume that this Bill has not been drawn up in a vacuum and that there are some schemes which the Minister expects will be carried out as a result of the Measure. I would ask, What are these schemes, how many acres are affected, and what type of drainage will be dealt with?

6.53 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I wonder whether the Minister will meet the House on this question. Under this particular Clause no catchment board is allowed to spend more than £5 per acre. We have experts on this matter in this House, and

the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) told us quite definitely that the figure will be nearer £15 per acre. The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) knows of land being drained in his part of England for £3 an acre covering 3,000 acres.

Mr. Lloyd George: That will probably be field drainage.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: It was not field drainage, but cleansing out of the drains leading to a pumping engine in the internal district of the Fenlands, where the land was three feet below the sea. The drains had to be cleaned out and the water actually pumped up into the river.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: My point was that some catchment boards can drain a very considerable acreage for £5 or under, whereas there are other catchment boards which will need £10 or £15. Would it not be possible for my right hon. Friend, or whoever is in charge of this Bill, to strike an average and take away the restriction in this Clause, whereby no single catchment board is allowed to spend more than £5 an acre? I feel sure that the House, which is more or less a Council of State at the present time, does not want to oppose the Government for the sake of opposing them. We all want the drainage of this land done, and if the Government can see their way to strike an average so that there is no restrictive measure on any particular catchment board, it would greatly help to get over the difficulties. I believe it would not be beyond the competence of the Government to amend the Bill in some such way and also to keep to their principle. A catchment board in my county where there is very low-lying land would find £5 an acre too low a figure, whereas in other areas, in the upland, a figure of £5 would be a very reasonable figure and the work might be done for even less. I hope the Government will see their way to amend this Clause, or any other Clause dealing with this question, and at the same time retain their principle, while helping particular catchment boards which may otherwise be in difficulty.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Two arguments have emerged in the discussion. One is that the area the Clause affects is too small,


and the second is that the limitation is too low. May I first deal with the area question? I do not think I can have made myself clear the other day. The drainage system comprises, first of all the catchment boards, which are responsible for the main arteries and waterways of this country, covering millions and millions of acres. Then there are the internal drainage boards and county councils and certain county boroughs, which are responsible for the minor waterways, including ditches. These are the two sections of the drainage authorities constituted under the 1930 Drainage Act. An immense amount of work has been done since 1930, both in arterial drainage and internal drainage. Something like £13,000,000 worth of work has been approved since 1930 for the catchment boards in their work on the main arterial rivers, and a smaller figure has been approved for the internal drainage boards. My point is that there is a very large drainage area already covered in this country as a result of the legislation in 1930.
This Bill purposely deals with a gap, for which I do not blame the authors of the Act of 1930. It is not a large gap. It is a gap occasioned by the pre-occupations of the counties and certain county boroughs with a great deal of other work besides drainage, and the pre-occupation has been intensified by the duties thrown upon them since the war. Without any disparagement to them it should be said that the work which has been carried out efficiently by the catchment boards and the internal drainage boards has not been so successful in the area for which the counties and county boroughs are responsible. That area is not a very large one. It is not anything like the area under the control of the drainage boards, but it may be substantial. I was asked for an estimate, but it is difficult to give one. A certain figure is in the explanatory Memorandum, but it is impossible to give a really accurate estimate at this stage. The general observation that nothing has been done for drainage in this Bill is beside the point. An immense amount has been done for drainage and an immense area has been covered. This Bill does not cover again the area which is under the supervision of the proper authorities. What it purports to do is to

fill up a gap which the existing legislation has shown to be empty.
With regard to the question of the £5 an acre, I could not have made my point clear last week. It is true that some drainage in the areas of the counties or county boroughs may require an expenditure of £10 or £15 an acre and probably more. The Bill does not say that they shall not spend more than £5 on any acre. It says that they shall spend an amount equal to £5 an acre on land comprised in the scheme.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: But that amount is restricted to the area of a particular catchment board and cannot be spread over the whole country.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Clearly the scheme itself must be in the area of the catchment board which prepares the scheme. The catchment board has certain money to spend, and the amount depends on the size of the scheme. If it is 1,000 acres, the board will have £5,000 to spend, of which the Government pay 50 per cent. and the rest is apportioned among the landowners. Part of the expenditure on this 1,000 acres may be £10 or £15 an acre and some may not cost £1, but as long as the average over the whole is £5 that should be sufficient. Let me give an illustration. The Felt well second drainage district contains 6,250 acres of land, all good fen land. Owing to the collapse of the drainage system, only about 1,500 acres remains in cultivation, and even this land is in a poor condition. The drainage engineers of the Ministry of Agriculture estimate that in order to bring the land back into full productivity an extensive programme of work is needed. The work should include not only the widening, deepening and cleansing of over 14,000 chains of drains, but the construction of new culverts, bridges and so forth. The expenditure is estimated at £25,000. The cost of reclaiming this tract of 6,250 acres of valuable land would therefore, work out at £4 an acre.
May I reinforce my illustration by stating that the Catchment Board Association, which is a body of people who have to do the work, are apparently perfectly satisfied with the financial arrangements? The chairman of one of the most important catchment boards expressed himself as satisfied, and, as far as I know, there has been no cry from the catchment


boards to remove the £5 an acre limit. Experience shows that this limitation is a perfectly reasonable one and that the work has been carried out, is being carried out, and can be carried out very easily in the areas with which we are concerned.

Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that in the case he quoted the work can be carried out at £4 an acre and that it will, therefore, be carried out. Suppose the estimate had been £5 5s. an acre, it would not be carried out?

Mr. Ramsbotham: In that case the scheme would be contrived in order to come within the average. I can imagine a case where a board might want to do something rather lavish which would bring the cost over the average. I still maintain the point that, broad and long, experience shows that this limitation is adequate for the purpose. I do not think that in practice we shall find any difficulty in getting the kind of scheme we want done carried out easily under this provision. No question arises in these times of draining marshes or the River Humber. We want to get ahead as quickly as we can in getting the land drained and producing crops. This Bill makes no attempt to deal with such ambitious and praiseworthy schemes as have been carried out and which have taken years and immense sums of money to carry out. We have no time to do that now, and this Bill does not contemplate anything like that. It contemplates something nearer and more practicable.

Mr. Lloyd George: When was the estimate mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman obtained? Is it a pre-war estimate, or was it obtained since the war?

Mr. Ramsbotham: As far as I know, it is an estimate a few months old at the outside.

Mr. Lloyd George: It is an important matter whether it is a pre-war estimate or an after the war estimate, because the price of everything has gone up considerably.

Mr. Ramsbotham: It is an up-to-date estimate, taking into account modern conditions. It is a post-war estimate.

7.8 p.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb: If I understand the Minister aright, I think he has given a good reply, but I want to be sure. I

take it that a wide area which is suffering from an excess of water can be divided into two for the purpose of the grant. One part requires draining at, say, £10 an acre, and the other, although suffering from an excess of water, does not require draining but only suffers because of the need for the drainage of the other land. I take it that the average in that case will be over the whole land?

Mr. Ramsbotham: That is correct.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: The Minister has tried to be fair about the Amendment, but I am afraid we are not satisfied. The limit of £5 an acre, even if one were to get the full advantage of the average in the manner he has described, does not meet the situation now. As a matter of fact, the Government have carried on this maximum of £5 from a Statute which is 10 years old and which was addressed to the major task of initially working catchment boards, which were to carry out big schemes over wide areas. The expenditure was averaged out for the areas which had then to be seen to. But now you have the urgent task of the improvement of land, which in fact will in many cases almost certainly have a higher capital cost attached to it than was possible under the first few large schemes.
There is this fact also. While we accept the statement which the Minister has just made that in the estimate which he put to the Committee he was dealing with an up-to-date tender, in dealing with the general task that we are facing to-day it is exceedingly optimistic for him to suggest that during the whole course of our war operations a maximum figure of this kind should be put into a Statute. I think that is a very great pity indeed. While we always welcome the kind manner in which the First Commissioner of Works addresses us on matters connected with other Departments than his own, which seems to be a permanent habit of his, nevertheless it really does not do to put him up to make a facile, courteous, and gentle speech of that kind and get us away from the object that we have in view, which is to get a far larger treatment of this problem of drainage in war-time than is possible under the Bill. That is the purpose of the Amendment, and, unless we can get some assurance of better treatment, I shall advise my hon. Friends to go to a Division.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. De la Bère: My right hon.
Friend always very nearly wins me round, but I want to know why the Government cannot adopt a more generous outlook, not only on the question of drainage, but on the whole question of agriculture in itself. If they adopted a more generous outlook as regards this
£5 maximum, they would be able to employ thousands of men who are at the moment unemployed. This is

Division No. 18.]
AYES.
[7.15p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Albery, Sir Irving
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reid, J. S. C (Hillhead)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Reith, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. W.


Assheton, R.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Higgs, W. F.
Robertson, D.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Blair, Sir R.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Held worth, H.
Rowlands, G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Boulton, W. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salt, E. W.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Butcher, H. W.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Scott, Lord William


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Selley, H. R.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Leech, Sir J. W.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Levy, T.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lindsay, K. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lipson, D. L.
Snadden, W. McN.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Somerset, T.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Cranborne, Viscount
Loftus, P. C.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Storey, S.


Culverwell, C. T.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Davidson, Viscountess
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


De la Bère, R.
McKie, J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Magnay, T.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Denville, Alfred
Maitland, Sir Adam
Tate, Mavis C.


Drewe, C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Thomas, J. P. L.


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Touche, G. C.


Dunglass, Lord
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Train, Sir J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Markham, S. F.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Emery, J. F.
Medlicott, Captain F.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Etherton, Ralph
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Wordlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Fildes, Sir H.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Warrender, Sir V.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Gledhill, G.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)


Gower, Sir R. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Greens, W. P. C. (Worcester)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Grimston, R. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Pym, L. R.
Wragg, H.


Hambro, A. V.
Radford, E. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.



Harbord, Sir A.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harland, H. P.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Banfield, J. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Ammon, C. G.
Barnes, A. J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Barr, J.

not skilled work and, even if it cost a figure in excess of £5, probably they would get a very large part of it back because they would be relieving a great deal of unemployment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 125.

Batey, J.
Hicks, E. G.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Beaument, H. (Batley)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Price, M. P.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hollins, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Benson, G.
Horabin, T. L.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Buchanan, G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Ridley, G.


Burke, W. A.
Jackson, W. F.
Riley, B.


Cassells, T.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Chater, D.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton, T. M.


Cocks, F. S.
John, W.
Shinwell, E.


Collindridge, F.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Cove, W. G.
Kirby, B. V.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Daggar, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Sloan, A.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dobbie, W.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lunn, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stephen, C.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ns)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McGovern, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Foot, D. M.
Maclean, N.
Tomlinson, G.


Frankel, D.
Marshall, F.
Viant, S. P.


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Milner, Major J.
Westwood, J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mort, D. L.
Wilmot, John


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Woodburn, A.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Owen, Major G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hardie, Agnes
Paling, W.



Harris, Sir P. A.
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Adamson.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 9, line 31, to leave out "annual."
A catchment board might form the opinion, from the use of this expression "annual," that the Income Tax authority will increase the value of the land in consequence of the carrying-out of a scheme. It is quite sufficient to say
that the value of the land will be increased in consequence of the carrying out of the scheme.

Mr. Alexander: This is an interesting Amendment. It seems to be suggested by the possibility that the Schedule B authorities of the Board of Inland Revenue might be tempted to have a look at these lands which have been improved by the Government subsidy and raise the valuations. I do not see any earthly reason for leaving out the word.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The right hon. Gentleman is somewhat suspicious, but it does not matter very much. The value of the land means the annual value. The "annual" is unnecessary, and we are content with "value."
Amendment agreed to.

7.25 p.m.

Sir E. Shepperson: I beg to move, in page 9, line 33, at the end, to insert:
and (c) that the carrying out of the scheme will not adversely affect the interests of owners and occupiers of land in lowland areas.
The purpose of the Amendment is not in any way directed against drainage schemes. I am absolutely and entirely in favour of the Clause and what it does for the drainage of land. The purpose is to put to the Minister that possibly in certain circumstances land may be drained in certain areas and that may harm land in other areas. Hon. Members may not quite know what I mean by the word "lowland." A river runs down from the uplands and in many cases flows through land which is very low. I might refer particularly to the River Ouse in the Fenland country, flowing from Buckingham, through Oxfordshire, Bedfordshire, and Huntingdonshire. Originally, the river emptied itself into the Fens and flooded them, and they became a marshland area. When they were drained, it was essential, in the first place, to deal with this upland water. In order to deal with it, two banks were built, each a mile from the other, 25 miles long and 10 to 15


feet high. The purpose was that when the water came down in flood instead of flooding the whole of the Fens it should only flood in between these two banks. After they were constructed the Fenland was drained. At that time the people in the Fens did not look for State contributions. They did the work by taxing themselves. The banks hold the normal flow of water, but, under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, work was done in the upland areas which accelerated the speed with which the water comes down and we had the possibility of the Fenland flooding of two years ago. The Bill gives assistance to the people in the upland areas to be more efficient in the drainage of their land, and the result will be that water will come down the main river much more rapidly than it did, and it may be, with that acceleration, that these two banks will be unable to bear the strain of that excess of water. The purpose of my Amendment is simply to make it possible for the catchment board to take into consideration the interests of the Fen country—some of the richest arable land in England—and to ensure that these banks are not subject to the risks of flooding.
The second interest that we have is the financial one. A catchment board under this Bill will carry out work under the 1930 Act, an Act introduced by hon. Members above the Gangway, the Socialist party. The catchment board have three sources of income: first, a grant from theTreasury—a limited amount; secondly, a levy of 2d. in the pound from all the upland areas; and thirdly, a levy on the districts in the lowland area. The Treasury grant is limited, the levy from the upland area is limited to 2d., and therefore any excess of expenditure by the catchment board would have to be borne by the unlimited liability partner, the districts in the lowland area. Many of the catchment boards to-day have already spent their 2d. levy. If they are going to carry on greater activities, who is to bear the financial burden? The unlimited liability partner, the internal districts of the lowland area. It is for that reason that I wish to have some assurance from the Minister. I am in favour of this Bill, but I want some assurance that it will not place upon the internal districts of the lowland

area a greater risk of being flooded and a greater financial liability to assist the upland area work, which is not doing them any good, but only harm, and the lowland districts should be assisted if, as a result of these activities, their banks were to break and the land were flooded.

7.34 p.m

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I hope the House will not accept this Amendment. First of all, I do not see how the lowland districts are affected. The 50 per cent. found by the Government cannot fall on the internal drainage boards. Of the 50 per cent. to be found by the landowners, there might conceivably, in case of a default on the part of the landowner, be a failure of recovery in a court of law. In that case application would no doubt be made to the Government for a grant.

Sir E. Shepperson: If the scheme under this Bill were to put more water into the main channels, those main channels would have to be enabled to deal with that water. The catchment board having reached the limit of its expenditure, the cost of dealing with that water would have to be borne by the internal districts in the lowland area.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: The hon. Member is raising the whole question of the upland as against the lowland. I deprecate very strongly the raising of this question, especially in war-time. I say quite frankly that if there was a danger of flooding such as he has described, I can see the hon. Member going to the Government and asking for assistance, but I think it is very unlikely that it would happen. I hope therefore that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment, because if it were put into the Bill, it would be almost impossible to carry out anything.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), but I am bound to say I think it highly improbable that a catchment board, concerned with the whole catchment area, would prepare a scheme which would cause serious flooding in the lowlands further down the river. Perhaps my hon. Friend would be more or less assured if I told him that my right hon. Friend


the Minister of Agriculture proposes to request the catchment boards to send copies of their draft scheme to any boards which are likely to be affected by it, so that these boards would have an opportunity to make representations, either to the catchment boards or to the Minister, if they thought they were likely to be subject to the danger which my hon. Friend apprehends. From the point of view of finance I would point out that these drainage boards can under the Agriculture Act, 1937, obtain from the Ministry a grant of 50 per cent. of the expenditure incurred, and they are also entitled to apply to the catchment board under Section 21 of the Land Drainage Act. If the catchment board refuses to make a contribution, the drainage board has a right of appeal. In view of that safeguard, namely, that the catchment board will notify the drainage board before any damage happens, and that the drainage board have a right to make representations, my opinion is that the Amendment should not be pressed.

Sir E. Shepperson: I desire to thank my right hon. Friend. I placed this Amendment on the Paper because it is important, especially in war-time, that a large area of the Fen country should not run the risk of flooding. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Parker: I beg to move, in page 9, line 42, to leave out from "situated," to the end of line 3, page 10.
The reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) and I put down this Amendment was to ask the Minister the meaning of the Clause. It would appear that the Clause may limit activities in connection with drainage schemes. Take the case of a small drainage scheme lately carried out by a catchment board immediately above a main river. I raised, on the Second Reading Debate, the case of the East Suffolk River Catchment Board which covers a number of rivers, largely tidal. There have been breaks in the dyke there. Will the Clause interfere with schemes if they are carried out by a board of that kind, to drain land adjoining the main river, a tidal river or perhaps some other kind of river?
I would like to ask the Minister a second question in connection with the Sub-sec-

tion which I am seeking to amend. The point is the same as that of an Amendment put down in respect of another Clause by the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts). Does the Clause prevent any big arterial scheme being carried out at the present time as part of the agricultural programme of the Government? That is important. It may be an advantage in some cases, even in war-time, to carry through a big scheme that would take time to complete. I hope that the Minister will answer those two questions.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Certainly there is nothing in the Clause as it stands which will prevent any big arterial scheme being carried out. There is no reason why there should be. I would point out in connection with the Amendment that a catchment board already has power, as the hon. Member knows, in respect of main rivers; and, as I said a short time ago, very large schemes, costing up to £13,000,000, have been approved. Apart from Government grants, the finance is provided by precepts on county councils, county boroughs and internal drainage boards. That method of financing is laid down in the Drainage Act. It would be a revolution, as far as I can see, in the principle laid down in the Drainage Act if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion were adopted. It would be most inappropriate to carry through extensive schemes on a large arterial river and charge the cost of it just to the landowners concerned. The whole point of the Drainage Act is to spread the cost, quite rightly, over a very much wider area. That is the reason for the Clause and also the reason why I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Parker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): I have lately had a manuscript Amendment handed in to me. Incidentally, it was put in for Clause 11, but I see that it is intended to apply to this Clause. It is similar to two Amendments that have been considered, and proposes, in page 10, line 12, to leave out "may" and to insert "shall." There are objections to accepting this Amendment, but if the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) will


address to me very shortly his reasons why I should call it he may possibly find me prepared to do so, for the purposes of a Division.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. C. Davies: I am very grateful, Sir Dennis, for the opportunity of doing so. Very rightly, you have pointed out that the Committee has already rejected two similar Amendments in an earlier part of the Bill, but I regard this part of the Bill as most important, and, in a few words, I think I can explain why the Amendment should be called. As you will see, Sub-section (4) is the operative one and Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) relate only to the scheme. When a scheme has been prepared it is for the catchment board to execute the works. In my submission that is the most important part of the procedure. The other is only the preparation of the plans. I can well understand this Committee taking the view that with regard to the preparation of plans the catchment board and the war agricultural committee should not be put under compulsion; but with regard to the actual execution of the plan, once the plan has been prepared and passed, I suggest there ought then to be compulsion and not merely permission.
If the matter is left in this permissive form I ask the Committee to look at what will happen. In the first place, the war agricultural committee will have gone into the matter and will have considered whether the agricultural land was capable of improvement by the execution of the drainage works. It will have gone to a considerable amount of trouble to satisfy itself that the land is capable of improvement. Having done that, it requests the catchment board for the area to carry out a scheme for the draining of the land. So far the matter is permissive. Having received that request, the catchment board may then prepare a scheme. It goes to very considerable expense to ascertain what the cost will be, because if the cost for the scheme exceeds £5 for each acre the board may drop it. If the board comes to the conclusion that the annual value of the land will not be increased as a consequence of the scheme being carried out, it may drop it. The board has to go into all those matters.
Let us turn to Sub-section (3) Which brings in the Fifth Schedule. The matter has then to be submitted to the Minister,

who has to go carefully into it, make his own inquiries and satisfy himself that the scheme is within the ambit of the Act, is necessary for the improvement of the land and is the kind of thing that is within the whole ambit of the Bill. He then sends along his approval. What will happen to the scheme, which has gone through all that procedure, if the Bill is left as it stands? The catchment board may drop the whole matter, and not execute the works at all. Surely that cannot be permitted at a time like this. It must be the desire of the Committee that once the war agricultural committee, the catchment board and the Minister have gone into these matters and have approved of them, the board should execute the works.
I expect that the answer which was given earlier will be given by the right hon. Gentleman now, that is, that there ought not to be compulsion and that we should do our best to induce others to work With us. We know, however, that local bodies differ in their activity. One body will be more anxious than others to do the work, and you will get a differentiation between land under one body and land under another body, notwithstanding the fact that the Committee are asking for a national scheme. I make no charge of dishonesty against any of these boards; I would not dream of doing so. They are not dishonest, but some are better than others. I believe the suggestion was made to a person that a particular brand of beer was bad. He is reported to have replied that there was no such thing as bad beer, but only that certain kinds of beer were better than others. I will adopt that answer in regard to catchment boards and say that there are no bad ones but that some are better than others. If the scheme has been passed by them and the Minister has given his approval, it is the intention of this Committee that the schemes should be carried out.
It is no use my right hon. Friend saying that we do not need to have compulsion. I wondered, when I listened to his speech, into which Lobby he went when we were voting upon conscription. What were his views in regard to it? Here, it is proposed that conscription should be brought to bear upon catchment boards when everybody is agreed, even the board itself, that the scheme is a right and proper one and when the Minister has


given his approval. The matter ought not to be left in its permissive form.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made out a case—I say "a case" without any adjective—that the Amendment should be called for purposes of decision. I think he also showed, in that part of his speech, that it was possible for us to go over again all the arguments that have already been put. I hope that that will not be done in the discussion.

Mr. C. Davies: I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, to leave out "may" and to insert "shall."

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I think there was no case made for the previous Amendments

Division No. 19.]
AYES.
[7.53 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pym, L. R.


Albery, Sir Irving
Grimston, R. V.
Radford, E. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Assheton, R.
Hambro, A. V.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Balniel, Lard
Harbord, Sir A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Harland, H. P.
Reith, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. W.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Blair, Sir R.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Robertson, D.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Heneage Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Bossom, A. C.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Rowlands, G.


Boulton, W. W.
Higgs, W. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Holdsworth, H.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hopkinson, A.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Salt, E. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Scott, Lord William


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Jennings, R.
Selley, H. R.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Levy, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lipson, D. L.
Snadden, W. McN.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Somerset, T.


Culverwell, C. T.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Davidson, Viscountess
Loftus, P. C.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Storey, S.


De la Bère, R.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Stourton,Major Hon. J. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Denville, Alfred
McKie, J. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Drewe, C.
Magnay, T.
Sutcliffe, H.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Tate, Mavis C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Ellis, Sir G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Emery, J. F.
Markham, S. F.
Touche, G. C.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Train, Sir J.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Etherton, Ralph
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fildes, Sir H.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Wakefield, W. W.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morrison. G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Gledhill, G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Cower, Sir R. V.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Wayland, Sir W. A.

that we rejected; I think there is much less a case for the Amendment we are now considering. After all the steps which the hon. and learned Gentleman have enumerated have been taken, an Amendment which makes it necessary to come down and say, "You shall execute," is really, I think, unworthy of anybody's support. The arguments I used before apply to the same degree on this Amendment, and I think there is still less to be said in favour of this Amendment than of the others.

Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 124.

Wells, Sir Sydney
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.



White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Womersley, Sir W. J.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.


Williams, C. (Torquay)
Wragg, H.



Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Owen, Major G.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Parker, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Hardie, Agnes
Parkinson, J. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pearson, A.


Banfield, J. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Barr, J.
Hicks, E. G.
Pritt, D. N.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Horabin, T. L.
Ridley, G.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Isaacs, G. A.
Riley. B.


Benson, G.
Jackson, W. F.
Ritson, J.


Buchanan, G.
Jagger, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Cassells, T.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Charleton, H. C.
John, W.
Silverman. S. S.


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Sloan, A.


Cocks. F. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Collindridge, F.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lunn, W.
Stephen, C.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
McGovern, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Tomlinson, G.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Maclean, N.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mander, G. le M.
Walkden, A. G.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Foot, D. M.
Mathers, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Volley)


Gallacher, W.
Milner, Major J.
Wilmot, John


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Woodburn, A.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mort, D. L.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, after "of," to insert "section thirty-four of."
This Amendment is really more or less a drafting Amendment. Powers are given to catchment boards under Section 34 of the 1930 Act, and there is no need, therefore, to extend their powers.

8.1 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): If I thought my hon. and gallant Friend was right, there would be no difficulty in accepting the Amendment, but, unfortunately, with the very greatest respect to him, he is not quite right, because Section 34 of the Act of 1930 does not contain by any means all the powers that the catchment boards will need. If my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment were accepted, they could not borrow a penny to carry out their work nor could

they acquire any land. Indeed, I happened to notice that in the very first Section of the Act of 1930 they are given power to hold land without a licence in mortmain, and they would not have that power if this Amendment were passed. I think that for these reasons—and I could give many others—my hon. and gallant Friend will see that merely incorporating the powers under Section 34 would not be nearly enough, and so I would ask him to accept my view of the necessity of incorporating the whole of the Act.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Pym: I beg to move, in page 10, line 24, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that—

(i) the amount so payable by the owner shall not in any event exceed either—
(a) the amount by which the value of his land has been increased by reason of the carrying out of the scheme; or
b) an amount equal to two pounds and ten shillings for each acre of his land included in the scheme;
(ii) the tenant of any land in respect of which the owner has made a payment under paragraph (b) of this Sub-section shall be liable to pay to the owner an annual sum equal to four per centum upon the amount so paid by the owner."
In addressing the Committee for the first time, may I ask for the kind indulgence which is always so generously accorded to those who are in this very distressing position? The reason for the first half of the Amendment, which stands on the Paper in my name and that of my hon. Friends, is to put some limit upon the amount an owner can be called upon to pay for the work to be carried out under this Bill. Those of us who have experience in these matters know only too well how difficult it is to relate the expenditure on land with the increased value of that land as the result of such expenditure. It is one of the most difficult things to do, and particularly is it the case with drainage work, where it is possible to expend a very large amount of money without largely increasing the value of some of the land affected. Where an owner is spending his own money no harm is done, but where his money is being spent for him by somebody else, then we ought to take care, and it would be unreasonable to charge him for any part of this expenditure which in fact did not improve his land. I do not suggest that the rest of this money is necessarily wasted. I realise fully the importance of this drainage as a war-time measure, and indeed as a general measure, and I think we cannot assume that it is necessarily wasted if it is not contributing to the value of the owner's land. It is probably increasing production, which is one of the things we are really after to-day, and it is parallel to the kind of expenditure which we have discussed in this House many times in the past few weeks. It is necessary in war time, but cannot be justified on any business or peace-time principles. It may well be necessary under the conditions in which we are, such, for example, as the sort of expenditure on buying in the

Balkans goods which we could buy more cheaply elsewhere. We do not in that case expect those who trade in the particular article to bear the additional expense of that economic policy. We expect, quite rightly, that it should be borne by the country as a whole, and I submit that the same considerations apply here, and that we should ask the Treasury to bear such part of the expenditure as may be regarded from that sort of angle.
There are two parts of this expenditure. There is the part that will improve the value of the land, and no one would deny that to that exent the owner should be asked to contribute his share. But it may be objected that it is not at all easy to ascertain the improved value of land due to this expenditure. I agree that that is so, but I do not see that the difficulty in finding out that figure is really any justification for leaving the owner in uncertainty as to what he would be called upon to pay. It is not really much comfort to him to say, "My dear Sir, I have made up my mind to spend so much money to do drainage work. I cannot easily find out what the benefit of that will be to you, so I shall, subject to a Treasury deduction, charge you with the whole cost." I do not think that this difficulty is insuperable, because in Clause 22, Sub-sections (5) and (6), there is provision for ascertaining the increased value of land which the agricultural committee has taken in hand, and I do not see why these same Sub-sections should not be applied in ascertaining the increased value of land dealt with under this Clause. Delay is absolutely impossible, but this Amendment need not cause a single day's delay in getting on with the work. It might add a little to the delay in finding out what the owner had to pay and collecting his portion from him, but as far as the work is concerned, it need not cause any delay at all.
The second point of my Amendment, paragraph (b), deals with the total liability that may fall upon an owner in relation to the Treasury grant. The liability as it stands is really rather an alarming one, because it has been made clear that the amount of £5 per acre is only an average figure, and an owner must be in considerable uncertainty as to what the ultimate bill presented to him


might be. It might be really a very startling amount, and it is hardly fair to leave owners in that position. We have been told in the explanatory Memorandum, or we certainly have the impression, that it is intended to make a Treasury grant of 50 per cent. of the cost of this work. I cannot find that in the Bill, and it is rather important, if it is intended, that it should be in the Bill. The provisions under Clause 14 (6) are delightfully vague. It says that the Minister
may, out of moneys provided by Parliament,
but it does not say how much, and it does not even go as far as so many hon. Members want it to go. It does not say that the Minister "must." I do not want to say that he must, but I want it to be made clear that his intention is to contribute 50 per cent., and paragraph (b) of this Amendment is drafted so as to give effect to that. If £5 an acre is the amount which is to be spent and the Treasury grant is to be £2 10s., it would only be reasonable to put into the Bill the sum of £2 10s. as the owner's contribution.
The third part of the Amendment deals with the position as between the owner and the tenant, no provision in respect of which appears at present to be embodied, in the Bill. The person who is really going to benefit by this expenditure is the occupier of the land. We talk about permanent improvement owing to drainage, but, of course, that is a complete misnomer. The use of the word "permanent" in connection with drainage has less meaning than it has when used in connection with anything else. The improvement can be permanent only if work is constantly done on it. At any rate, for the first few years after this expenditure, the occupier is the person who will gain.
Let us look at the sort of thing that will happen. A war agricultural committee, anxious to do its best, will have its attention called to an area of land of 1,000 or 2,000 acres which will have a main brook, or subsidiary stream, which may want clearing out. There will be ditches and drains on the individual farms. It may well be nobody's business to deal with the brook. Therefore, that may account for the state of the farm ditches and drains which, in practically all cases are the liability of the occupier of the

land. For one reason or another they have not been cleared out for many years past, partly owing to hard times and financial difficulties. There are a great many things on a farm which a farmer would like to do in reasonably prosperous times but which have to go by the board when times are hard, and costs have to be reduced. You may say that the owner should have seen that the work was done but it is much easier said than done. I think the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) gave another good reason why this work has not been done. It was that if the main brook is not cleared out, it is not much good doing the ditches. Well, a committee does get to work, and a scheme which includes the clearing of the main stream and the ditches on a farm is worked out, and increased agricultural production will result. As the Bill stands, however, the whole of the cost is placed upon the owner of the land.
That cannot be either equitable or fair. In so far as the tenant's part of the work is concerned—the clearing of ditches on the farm—one might well suggest that it should be the tenant's liability to pay and not the owner's, but my experience in these things is that the letter of the law is seldom insisted upon in agricultural matters of this sort. As a reasonable sort of compromise the Amendment says that the tenant shall pay 4 per cent, upon that part of the work which represents the work for which he is liable. I think there is no doubt that he will be glad to do that and relieve himself of capital expenditure. There is another part of the work—the clearing of the main brook—and here the analogy is one of farm improvements. The tenant asks for someing to be done, and the owner says, "I cannot do it at your rent, but I will find the money if you will be prepared to pay some interest upon it." That arrangement is being made every day of the week. Here is a Bill which is making arrangements for the parties, and I think it is only reasonable to include a provision for the payment of interest.
We welcome the effort which is being made to effect this long needed improvement, and I am certain that landowners as a whole will be prepared to do their share. If the Government accept this Amendment the result will be that more work of this kind will be undertaken. I think nothing is so likely to hamper work and damp down the enthusiasm of the


committees and catchments boards as a feeling that one party to the bargain has got rather a raw deal. We would all feel the same. If we have the impression that hardship is going to be done, it does not encourage us to get on with our work. We know that in these times we have to give up the safeguards, careful review, and inquiry which, in more normal times, would be insisted upon. We are quite prepared to leave a good deal to the Minister and realise that he has no intention of doing anything that is not perfectly fair, but the Bill needs amendment in these directions. Landowners are entitled to ask that the cheque they give to the Minister shall not be a blank cheque, but that there shall be written across the top in red ink, "Not to exceed £x."I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment in that spirit, because, if I may quote some words used the other day it is conceived not in any obstructive spirit, but is intended
to allay a considerable uneasiness,
at present in the minds of landowners, which will undoubtedly grow as the provisions of this Bill become more widely known. I thank hon. Members for listening to me so attentively in this, my first, speech in the House, and I hope that they will extend the leniency shown to first offenders and support the Amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am glad that it falls to my lot to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Pym) on the best and most well-informed maiden speech to which any of us have listened for a long time. He was most persuasive, and I only wish he had been sufficiently persuasive to enable me to accept the whole of his proposal on this, St. Valentine's, day. I will deal briefly with the hon. Member's points. I am sure the Committee will agree that it is not unreasonable that part of the cost of remedying a state of affairs, which in many cases has been due to the neglect of the owners, should fall on those responsible, even if that return is not wholly commensurate with the outlay involved. Where the neglect has been caused by the failure of the tenant to carry out repairs which have been provided for under his contract of tenancy, it is not unreasonable to put some part of the cost on the tenant, and I think that is my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. MacLaren: But surely there is an enforceable action for the breaking of the contract?

Mr. Ramsbotham: It is not very easy to sue your tenant every week for a ditch which has not been cleaned out. Most of the schemes under this Bill will include water courses, which are normally the responsibility of the landowner, and also farmers' ditches, which are the general liability of the tenant under his contract of tenancy, and I do not think there is any justification for imposing entirely on the tenant the cost of clearing a water course for which he has no responsibility. In that case he would be getting a raw deal which we should not impose upon him. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture wishes to meet the case where the scheme includes ditches for which the tenant is responsible, and he is considering how the matter can best be dealt with. I do not think this Amendment, however, as it stands, will be fair or entirely acceptable, and I am suggesting to my hon. Friend that between now and the Report stage my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture will try to find words which will ensure that where works involving ditches, which are the liability of the tenant under contract, are included in a scheme, steps will be taken to prevent any unfair charge being made on the landowner and any unfair charge on the tenant for carrying out work which is the responsibility of the landlord. The Amendment will not do that, and I hope my hon. Friend will be content with my suggestion that we will see whether words can be framed to carry out his main purpose. I hope he will not press the Amendment.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: May I also be allowed to congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Pym) on his very clear maiden speech? As President of the Land Agents Society, he brings a practical knowledge of land problems to this House, and if his first speech is any indication of his general knowledge, he is going to become a power in this House, at least from the landowner's peculiar point of view. The Amendment would not be accepted by any member of the Committee, although the First Commissioner of Works has expressed sympathy towards it. It will be something of a problem to


determine the increased value of any land which was drained, and when the hon. Member referred to the tenant paying 4 per cent. interest on the capital outlay of the landowner in draining land, I cannot recall a single instance when agriculture has been granted a subsidy, even the subsidy granted under this Bill, of one single, solitary complaint from a landowner. This Bill starts with increasing the standard price for wheat, which, indirectly, is a guarantee to the landowner of his rent. Part II continues the increased standard prices for oats and barley, and gives a subsidy for rye. Not a single complaint from any landowner.

Sir J. Lamb: Why should there be?

Mr. Williams: And Part III provides a subsidy of £2 per acre for any acreage put under the plough. No complaint from any landowner. He knows that his rent is being assured. The hon. Member for Monmouth and the First Commissioner of Works said that it may be that the land owner has made no effort to drain the land and maintain its fertility in the past—

Mr. Pym: My point was that he had neglected to force his tenant to carry out the work.

Mr. Williams: It is the same kind of neglect which has enabled millions of acres of land in this country to fail to do its duty. What the landowner has not appreciated in the past, and does not appreciate to-day, is that although he has the power to engage his tenant, the land is really held for the State and should be utilised to the maximum advantage. To that extent there has been neglect, and I do not think landowners ought to complain very much, for with the general financial assistance which they are indirectly receiving through the agency of this House, they are doing no more than their share when they are called upon to make some contribution under this Measure.
I conceive from the speech of the hon. Member that arrangements are being made between landlords and tenants that where slight improvements have taken place the tenant will recompense the landlord to some extent. That disposes of the need for this Amendment, and in any case the Agricultural Holdings Act of

1923 provides that where special circumstances can be pleaded by the tenant or landlord there can be a change in the rental of any particular farm, and, therefore, it seems to me that there is no need for the Amendment. We have no objection to a fair deal between landlord and tenant, but I want to say to the First Commissioner of Works that if any set of words which may be provided at a later stage seems to indicate in the slightest degree that money will filter through, or that indirect assistance will be given, to owners of land who in the past have neglected their duties to the land, they will meet with ready-made opposition from these benches.

8.27 p.m.

Sir G. Courthope: I should like to join in the chorus of approval and to congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Pym) on a maiden speech in which he presented his case with such admirable clearness that the Government are going to consider it. There are one or two points I want to put. I am a landowner. I am one of those unfortunate and mistrusted people, but I should like to say at once, as an agricultural landowner, that I agree with the last few sentences of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). In a Bill of this kind there ought to be no advantage, direct or indirect, from a subsidy to landowners, and I do not believe that landowners want it. There are two points which should be looked at very carefully by the Government. One is the avoidance of legal complications. In a great many cases the failure of drainage schemes on existing farms is the subject of accumulating liability for dilapidations, and unless this is guarded against in connection with the expenditure and the liability placed on particular shoulders in connection with this drainage work, there will be very considerable confusion on a change of tenancy. That is a point which will be quite familiar to the Minister of Agriculture, and I am sure he will appreciate its importance.
The second point that I want to raise is of a practical nature. In a great many cases, the present serious need for drainage on something more than a field-drainage scale is due to a change in the method of farming the land which was brought about by the hard times. Land which formerly was sub-divided into fields


with ditches that were kept open has tended to become a ranch, with cattle roaming all over the land. The fences have very largely gone, and the ditches have been trampled in. We hope such dilapidations will be repaired, so that it will be possible again to carry out field drainage of the land; but I hope that the Minister and his advisers, in their consideration of the matter of placing the liability for the expenditure, will find it possible to ensure that the work now to be done will not be undone by neglect in the course of a few years. It is a relatively simple thing to maintain properly-executed drainage, but it is a very much easier thing entirely to undo the work by a year or two of neglect. If cattle are allowed to range over the whole farm and to tread in the ditches again in the future, as they have done in the past, any work done now, and any expenditure arising from this Bill, will be wasted. I hope it will be possible for the Minister to make some provision, in arranging where the liability is to fall, which will make it likely that care will be taken to maintain the drains which we hope will be constructed and reopened as a result of the Bill.

8.32 p.m.

Brigadier-General Brown: There is an Amendment on the Paper in my name, in line 36, which covers the second point of the Amendment now under discussion. Although I do not intend to move my Amendment, as the Minister said that the words of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Pym) are not satisfactory, I wonder whether the wording of my Amendment would be suitable for the purpose. I am quite prepared to leave it to the Minister to judge what is fair as between the landowners and the tenants, but I should like to refer to one type of case which shows that consideration ought to be given even to landowners. Recently, the War Office took over from a landowner a big stretch of land for use as a rifle range. When the War Office take over land in this way, they make a proviso that they shall not pay anything in respect of any appreciation in the value of the land, but equally they do not pay to the landowner anything in respect of any depreciation in the value of the land which they have caused. Surely, if the War Office are the tenants and the landowner is to be charged in respect of extra drainage, the

War Office ought to pay their share of the loss caused to the landowner by their negligence. I mention this purely as an extreme example which needs to be dealt with fairly. I think we can trust the Minister to do so.

8.34 p.m.

Sir J. Lamb: In giving partial support to the Amendment, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Pym) on the fluent manner in which he made his point in moving the Amendment. It was a pleasure to listen to him. I have said that I partially support the Amendment. I speak from the point of view of an occupier, and not a landlord, but I rather deprecate the division between owners and occupiers when we are discussing agriculture. Undoubtedly, the landlords have rights, and they have suffered during the depression. I think we should look after the interests of both parties and of the State at the same time. I am sorry that the Minister could not accept the first part of the Amendment, paragraph 1 (a) and (b). Paragraph 1 (a) is simply a safeguard against expenditure being made which ultimately will be of no value because it will not give any value to the land. We do not want to spend money which will not give an adequate return either to the occupier or the State. I feel that that part of the Amendment might very well have been accepted by the Minister. Paragraph 1 (b) really represents an undertaking which the Government are giving already. It is simply a question of inserting it in the Bill. As I am always a great advocate of such things being inserted in the Bill, I feel that that part of the Amendment could have been accepted.
With regard to the second part of the Amendment, however, I feel that it is too definite, on account of the words "of any land." In some cases, it is the fault, not of the occupier, but of the owner. I hope that the Minister will not accept this part of the Amendment on the Report stage without making a very great alteration in it. The cause of the neglect may be that the landowner did not do his share by way of providing the necessary drainage tiles, and so on, for which the tenant was not responsible, and consequently, the tenant was not able to do what he wanted to do—that is to say, keep the land in a good condition—because the landlord would not give the


necessary assistance. This matter ought to be left for settlement by the ordinary procedure between the landlord and the tenant. If a tenant is not carrying out his obligations and is not farming the land properly, it is possible for the landlord to obtain possession of the land. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth said that the letter of the law is not always insisted upon, and that is true, not only in the case of landlords and tenants, but in many other cases. It is characteristic of the British people that, although in law a person may have rights, he does not necessarily always enforce those rights. I hope the Minister, in his reconsideration of the Amendment, will see his way to accept the first part, but not the second part.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I hope the Minister will be careful in his generosity, because it seems to me that the argument in favour of including these words in the Clause is that the people who have been negligent in the past, should be rewarded, in these time of difficulty, for their negligence. I am not so sure that the relationship between landlord and tenant, as far as farmers are concerned, has always been of the happy kind described by the last speaker. I have had a little experience of landlords and tenants, and while, in some cases, both may be a little awkward, it is the tenant who comes off the poorer in the deal time and again. I particularly hope that no attempt will be made to incorporate the second paragraph of the proposed Amendment in the Bill. To suggest that the landlord should be given 4 per cent, on the amount which he is called on to pay towards improvements rendered necessary by past neglect, seems to go a long way in the direction of asking the tenant to pay for all improvements, irrespective of whether he has any responsibility in connection with them or not.
Landlords, generally speaking, are looked on as people of substance and I do not think it would be difficult for them to borrow money to-day at a rate less than 4 per cent. If they are to obtain 4 per cent. from the tenant on the money which they are called upon to pay, then it seems to me they are going to improve the land for the benefit of earning that 4 per cent. on the amount of money necessary for such improvement. There-

fore, as I said, I hope the Minister will he careful in his generosity. I believe that the guaranteed prices to which my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) referred, provide the guarantee that the fertility of the land will be maintained. The suggestion that farms have been allowed to go out of cultivation and ditches allowed to become filled in, because the farms did not pay, is not an argument which can be used about work carried out for the purpose of growing products the prices of which are guaranteed by the State.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: I wish to address one inquiry to the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope). I wish to be clear as to the point which he had in mind and on which he thought the Government might meet him. He seemed to direct his attention to a set of circumstances in which a tenant in vacating a farm and handing it over to another; a tenant-right valuation is taken, and certain improvements on the part of the outgoing tenant are offset by dilapidations claimed by the in-coming tenant, and there is an agreement between both of them and the landlord. If that is the direction in which he is seeking to turn the Government's attention, I hope that some tightening-up process will take place; in other words that the out-going tenant will be required either to reduce his dilapidations before going out, or that the in-coming tenant will be required to use the money which he actually gets for dilapidations in carrying out improvements, either in repairs or otherwise. If that is what the right hon. and gallant Member has in mind, it is an interesting suggestion. Often dilapidations are secured by an in-coming tenant but are not used to remedy the defects in respect of which they were secured. I think it is useful to direct attention to this matter but I hope it is not proposed to go any further than that point. Otherwise we should find it necessary to resist the proposal.

Sir G. Courthope: That was my point.

Mr. Pym: I am not quite clear what the undertaking was with regard to the first part of the Amendment, but I understand that it will be considered later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The next Amendment which I call is that in the name of the Minister of Agriculture—in page n, line 26, after "land," to insert "set out in the scheme as being the land."

Sir J. Lamb: May I formally move the Amendment in my name—in page 10, line 40, to leave out from "debt" to the end of line 6, page 11—with a view to obtaining an explanation from the Minister? I do not intend to press it.

The Deputy-Chairman: I had already called an Amendment which stands further down on the Paper. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would make his point on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I beg to move, in page 11, line 26, after "land," to insert "set out in the scheme as being the land."
This is really a drafting Amendment. It is for the purpose of making clear that the area set out in the scheme as being the area to be drained, is definitely "the land" for all the purposes of this Clause.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Colville: I beg to move, in page 11, line 34, at the end, to add:
(9) The provisions of this Section shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any award made under any enactment.
Awards made under public or local Acts often contain provisions as to the persons by whom certain drains are to be maintained. In many cases, these provisions have now become obsolete and it is difficult to define the landowners who are liable to maintain the drains. It is obviously desirable that in any scheme under this Clause, all the owners whose land will be improved by the scheme should contribute to the cost.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

8.48 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: We have been discussing this Clause for 2½ or three hours and we have not secured even one of the Amendments which we desired to make in it. I am still inclined to think what I thought when I first read the Clause—that the Government are not really

serious about this. Rather are they "fiddling while Rome is burning" in relation to this problem. I ask hon. Members to look at what the Clause implies. The first obligation is that the war agricultural executive committee have to satisfy themselves, presumably after a report from the district committee, that a certain area of land could be improved if properly drained. When the agricultural executive committee have made up their minds on that point, they may request the catchment board to prepare a scheme. The catchment board, having been so requested by the agricultural executive committee, may prepare the scheme. By the same rule, they may not. If the catchment board agree to prepare a scheme, the next condition laid down is that the drainage scheme which is to restore the land to fertility, must not exceed £5 an acre in cost.
The catchment board, having fulfilled that condition in the preparation of the scheme, are then called upon to submit any such scheme to the Minister. The Minister must then put the scheme through a very fine mesh. He must examine the "pros" and "cons" and go into the cost, the relative improvement in the value of the land and so forth and he may or may not approve of the scheme. Should the Minister, in the goodness of his heart, approve of the scheme when all the arrangements have been scrutinised and dealt with faithfully and carefully and scientifically, then the catchment board may execute the work—or again they may not. That seems to be the general structure of the Clause and I cannot help feeling that, unless the war is to go on for some considerable time, this machinery will produce very few if any drainage schemes and the Measure will not be worth the paper on which it is written.
On the Financial Memorandum in the forefront of the Bill the anticipated expenditure in 12 months is approximately £230,000 on all the drainage schemes visualised by Clause 14. On the basis of a maximum charge of £5 per acre, half for the Treasury and half for the landowners, there is a possible, but very improbable, drainage of some 90,000 acres of land. It may be argued that a further 90,000 acres of land restored will, and should, make a contribution to our food supplies, but we are at the commencement of a war and we are told by hon. and


right hon. Gentlemen that food production is of importance. If we are not going to deal with this problem on a much more effective and determined scale than is visualised in Clause 14 I am convinced that we are more or less wasting our time and the time of the Committee. For my part, since all the Amendments we have submitted, calculated to improve the effectiveness of Clause 14, have been more or less summarily rejected, I am inclined to vote for the deletion of Clause 14 so that the Government may be compelled to bring back at a later stage a really effective Clause, and one which would do the job well and do it efficiently for a wide area, giving effect to what is generally felt in all parts of the Committee. But the Clause as it stands, I feel, is a hopeless one, and, perhaps, it would be as well if it was eliminated from the Bill.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: This is the main Clause dealing with the problem of drainage, which is a war-time measure. We are being asked to agree to an additional grant, an additional percentage, and additional powers, for the simple reason that the lack of drainage is believed to be one of the major causes which is preventing the land being used to the full for war-time food production. Many of us feel that this Clause is lamentably insufficient to deal with the situation as it exists. I asked the Minister, on an Amendment on this Clause, for some facts which it seems to me it is vital we should know if we are to have an effective policy of land drainage. I asked for these facts on Second Reading. But we are not given them, and I can only presume that they are not in the Department. It seems to me fantastic that we are asked to deal with drainage and are not told what is the problem. There was some question whether the figures given on this side were correct, but the Government Front Bench have not stated what the facts are. Is it that the survey we have often enough asked for from these benches has never been carried out, and that the Ministry do not know how much land drainage is necessary? Have they no estimate of how much food production is being limited by the inadequacy of drainage? If they have not, I feel it is lamentable.
There is an organisation called the Land Utilisation Survey, not supported by Government funds but by private individuals, at least to a large extent. It made a survey field by field of almost the whole country. Is it not possible for us to be told what is the problem facing us? Of course, it is possible to spend an unlimited amount on drainage, some of which would not be economical, but where are the Government drawing the line? Are we to understand that if any scheme costs more than £5 an acre that it is not an economical scheme, and are we to understand that only some 50,000 acres of land are to be drained in a year under the provisions of this Clause? If that is so, it seems to me that at some later stage in this war the Government will greatly regret the miserable sum which they are now prepared to spend. I submit that it is far cheaper to spend money on producing food here and making the land fit for producing food, than sometimes spending money on food from abroad which does not get here. I think that we are entitled to know what are the facts about the drainage position. Members who go out and travel about this country have seen thousands of acres under water and every Member who has spoken to-day has mentioned districts which he knows where land drainage is needed.
I have tried to find for myself an estimate of what land is being drained and I went to the Ministry's own publication, to the Ministry of Agriculture's Journal for December last year, which is fairly up-to-date. I find that in an article on drainage it is stated:
There is reliable evidence that 25 per cent. of the heavy land in the country is in distinct need of field drainage.
I agree that that is field drainage, that is, tile drainage, which is not being dealt with at all in this Bill. This publication says—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid we cannot discuss what is not in the Clause. Tile drainage is not in the Clause. What we are discussing on the question of the Clause standing part of the Bill, is what is in the Clause.

Mr. Roberts: I am sorry I have been carried away into dealing with what is not in the Clause, but perhaps I may refer to my other estimate, which is cer-


tainly nearer home. I find in a recent publication of Sir George Stapledon, who has been mentioned with honour by all, that in discussing this question of drainage nearer London, in Hertfordshire and Middlesex, strangely enough in connection with a clean-up milk competition—this does not apply to tile drainage but to all drainage—he states that 57 per cent. of the land situated in Middlesex is in need of drainage and 40 per cent. of the land visited in Hertfordshire is in need of drainage. I ask simply and plainly how much of the 57 per cent. of the land in Middlesex, or the 40 per cent. in the case of Hertfordshire, is to be affected by Clause 14 of this Bill? I think we are entitled to know, and, if not, some of us will feel that we must show in some regard that this proposal is quite inadequate. One of the difficulties on this whole question has been that the initiation of schemes is in the hands of the county councils who do not always carry out their obligations quite as energetically as they might.
I suggest that the present arrangement is still not adequate to meet that position, that the war agricultural executive committees are not given by Sub-section (1) really effective power to initiate schemes, that the Minister himself is nowhere given power to initiate them, and that if in some counties none of the authorities concerned are ready to initiate work, nothing can be done. The situation of owners and occupiers trying to carry out the instructions of the war executive committees in those districts will be made impossible by the inability of the Minister to initiate drainage work which it is known is needed. Cannot the Minister give some better estimate of what is needed? We have the estimate of what is to be done, but what is the proportion of the work which really needs to be done and which can be done, in the Minister's opinion, on an economic basis?

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd George: On the Committee stage it is impossible within the limits of Order to re-examine the character of the proposals before the House and I will not attempt to do so at this time of the night. I think, however, it will be useful to survey the course of the discussion on this Clause as an illumination of the real character of the proposal as a whole. I attempted last time, after a considerable time which I spent upon an investigation of the various Clauses of the Bill and the

facts of the case, to give the House some idea of what I thought the Bill would effect and how lamentably it fell short of the real need, the dire need, the very alarming need with which we are confronted. To-night, especially on this Clause, the examination to which it has been subjected by my hon. Friends on both sides of the Committee has revealed even more truly not merely the inadequacy of the Measure, but the really piffling character of it, having regard to the tremendous emergency with which we are faced, an emergency real and grave, which may well become critical.
Hon. Members must give a good deal of time to contemplating the tremendous possibilities with which we are confronted. I guarantee, Colonel Clifton Brown, that I will bring my remarks within the limits of the Clause; I do not want to create any difficulties for the Chair. Somebody has called it a queer war. It is a very incalculable war. It is getting more and more so as the dreary, dark days roll by. Things are happening from day to day which threaten its extension, its development, and its prolongation. I will deal on this Clause only with the prolongation. You have to see that the people are fed, that our Armies are fed, and that we have an adequate surplus to enable us to deal with any situation with which we may be confronted, not merely at home or in France, but in any quarter of the globe. Food you must get, because the moment the supply of food breaks down, though the spirit of the people will not break down, their strength will, and they will be unable to prolong the struggle.
Therefore, everything that can be done to save our shipping and, at the same time, to provide adequate supplies for feeding the people of this country, is an essential element in the conduct of the war. Food, in my judgment, is our weakest plank. I listened with great care to the Debate to-night from the beginning up to within the last hour and to the replies of the Ministers. I will tell you what struck me. Here we have a terrible emergency, but I would not have thought so from any speech I have heard from Ministers. They were casual, leisurely, niggardly—little objections put forward against every attempt to reclaim land for the purpose of the production of food, which is essential—essential, I warn you—to the life of this country. I was


ashamed to think that such insignificant, such paltry reasons should be put against the efforts which are being made. Five pounds an acre—no more!—not "as much as matters in the estimation of a hair"; Portia's judgment, Shylock's bond applied to something upon which the life of Britain depends. The accomplishment by Britain of her mission as the pioneer of freedom and the greatness of our Empire in the world are to depend on £5, and no more.

Mr. Ramsbotham: When the right hon. Gentleman says "£5 and no more," does he mean that a limit of £5 is placed on the expenditure on any acre? If it goes out in the way he has put it, it will create the impression that there is a maximum limit of £5 on any acre. There may be an expenditure of £10 or £15 an acre. It is essential that that should be clear.

Mr. Lloyd George: I am not going to allow the right hon. Gentleman to ride off on a quibble like that. It is an average of £5 expenditure on a particular scheme. Why did he not say so before?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I have said it several times.

Mr. Lloyd George: The average expenditure per acre is £5 and no more. There was a scheme. It was an estimate. If the right hon. Gentleman, who must have had great experience in business, has ever been able to carry through any scheme, even for the building of a house, where there are no extras at all, I congratulate him. He is the only man in this House who has had that happy experience. It was £4 7s. 3½d. or something of that kind, if you could do it at that. But supposing it cost an extra 13s., although there were 6,000 acres of food in a great war which may depend upon it, No. Shylock's bond! £5 and no more—not even the weight of a feather. Empire on one side and an extra halfpenny on the other. This is not the fault of the Chair. They have to rule in accordance with Resolutions which have been carried by the House. But they are so framed that the House of Commons, which is as responsible for the war and for its conduct as the Government, and responsible for feeding the people whom they represent, is not allowed, because they are out of order, to move Amendments to extend the

operation of the reclamation of land which produces food, which, if it was taken in hand now, might raise millions of tons of food in a few years, when we may still be fighting our life-and-death battle. They are ruled out of order, but Hitler's submarines, mines and aeroplanes cannot be ruled out of order. Do not imagine that, in getting rid of troublesome Amendments, you are getting rid of the great trouble that is raging outside. The House of Commons ought to have been allowed to discuss this freely. There was another Clause which would have saved them from extravagant expenditure and no one moved its omission:
The cost of preparing and carrying out the scheme will not exceed an amount equal to £5.
That is the first. What is the second? That the value of the land will be increased in consequence of the carrying out of the scheme. What more do you want as a limitation than that? No one proposed to leave that out. If it cost £10 or £15 an acre for reclamation, if the value of the land increased by that amount, is not that sufficient justification for it? What more do you require? You want to keep it down to £230,000 where you ought to have £40,000,000 or £50,000,000. It is only filling up a gap. It is the gap through which we may drop. That is the gap that you want to be filled up.
Why have all these limitations been introduced? The right hon. Gentleman has had to take up his brief owing to the absence of the leading counsel through unfortunate ill-health; therefore, one must make great allowances. He has to defend a very bad Bill. He had what is known at the Bar as a docker, a brief handed out by the judge at the last moment to defend someone in the dock. [An Hon. Member: "He will get off."] He will get off before this jury. They have let off much worse prisoners than that. But we have not had the defence yet of the only Minister in the War Cabinet who is in charge of agriculture. He is responsible. The right hon. Gentleman, who has just come here to defend a colleague, is not responsible. I do not think the Minister for Agriculture is responsible. The Cabinet are responsible. We have a member of the Cabinet here. We have not had a single defence of something on which the success or failure of the war may depend. His treatment of the catch-


ment boards was, I think, very characteristic of the attitude of the Government. Someone proposed that instead of saying "a catchment board may prepare a scheme," it should be "shall." Oh, no. You must say "Please." You must not be rude to a catchment board. "Will you be so kind?" "Is the catchment board willing?"
If that were applied all round, I wonder what would happen. "Farmers, will you plough the land?" Apply it to the hundreds of thousands, the millions, of young men you are sending to the Front. "Will you kindly advance with your rifle in that direction?" The officer must be polite. Why should not you apply the principle of compulsion all round? Rudyard Kipling, in one of his most delightful novels, "Kim," said there was a Hindu maxim, "A stick is a very good reason." Yes, but you must apply it all round, otherwise it is a bad reason. It is no use if you apply the stick to one person who disobeys, and simply say to the other, "Oh, please do," and if he does not, you say, "That is all right. I would not be unkind to you. You are a catchment board, you are not a soldier fighting for your country."
"May request"—yes, but may refuse. And there was a most amazing explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman. He said the catchment board could find many reasons for not carrying out this Bill. What a shame. This is a Bill to drain land when you suddenly came to the conclusion that it ought to be drained, that it can be drained, that it will increase the value of your land, and improve the supply of food. But if the catchment board do not want to do it, there are plenty of reasons which they could get in this Bill. What amazing drafting! What was the object of this Bill? Was it to drain land in order to produce food? Here is an elaborate Clause of three pages, Sub-sections and sub-Sub-sections, and italics and every form of type—a sham, something that you can show to pretend that you are going to do something which you have not the slightest intention of doing, because you are only going to spend £230,000. A Bill like that is a downright piece of cheating of the public.
And all this because of Clause 14. I will tell you what struck me in the course of the Debate—the complete lack of

initiative. There is no initiative from the people who are in charge. They do not even survey. I beg pardon; that is out of order. We cannot even refer to it without being disorderly. But survey, surely, is essential, and there are catchment areas in very small counties, very heavily rated—rates at the present moment that the farmers cannot pay without pinching themselves and borrowing. They cannot employ engineers and surveyors to examine all these things. The initiative ought to come from the top. It was said that Sir George Stapledon has surveyed a few acres. Yes, but we should not leave to the initiative of a highly respected and very able citizen the job that belongs to Government. The initiative ought to come from the top. Three and a half million acres needing arterial drainage—schemes carried, but not carried out. And yet they do not take in more than a percentage of the whole, even if they were carried out, and they are not. Look at the money that is spent year by year in the grants of the Government. They do not come to all that. It shows that these great schemes have not been carried out. It is all very well to refer to the Pontine Marshes, but they were not done in war-time. You have 1,500,000 unemployed here, and you could have expedited the whole of this. Then what are they doing with 10,000,000 acres needing drainage? You give us 7,000,000 acres—I gave the figures before, and I gave my authority.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I could not discover the authority.

Mr. Lloyd George: Yes, my authority was Sir George Stapledon. I gave the authority last time; if I had known it would be challenged, I would have brought it here. One figure was based on the Royal Commission on Arterial Drainage and the other was the field drainage in this country. If that area amounted to as much as the waterlogged area which is due to the lack of arterial drainage, it would produce 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 tons of food, and you have only given—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is outside this Clause. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lloyd George: I am so sorry that I was misled by the Minister. I apologise, Colonel Clifton Brown, on his behalf. I


therefore will not carry that any further. You leave the conduct of this matter to the catchment areas. I agree that, considering how they are made up and how they have been equipped, both in cash and otherwise, they have done their work very well indeed.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that they are since his time?

Mr. Lloyd George: I know, and that accounts for it. I should have put a little more drive into it—at least, I think I should—some years ago. It is a terrific job. There are millions of acres of waterlogged land in this country. The need for drainage in order to produce food upon them may be a decisive factor. I do not like war, but I have tried to look ahead with a certain recollection of what happened 30 years ago, when the factors were more in our favour than they are to-day in regard to our land.
There is this sum of £230,000 plus the £130,000—which is out of order—for the drainage of those millions of acres of waterlogged land. Some of it is good, some is bad, and some is indifferent—so is all land—but in the main it would be productive and that is the only thing you must look at. We have examined the matter to-night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was a little annoyed with me for what I said the other day about his being mingy. I confined that charge to the Bill. He has spent a good deal of money, I admit. As he said himself, he has been lavish in other directions. A little late, I admit, but he has spent it. He has gone through £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 a day. Some of it has been spent rather extravagantly, but let us say that it has been spent as wisely as is possible in war time; but it is no use doing that while you have a vital thing like this land question neglected. It is no use having—I will give it first in Welsh—"pen punt a chynffon ddima". What does that mean? It means "a pound head and a halfpenny tail." You may go about with fine garments adorned with jewels, but your feet are on the soil of the earth, and you may have tattered and ragged boots. So we may be spending thousands of millions of pounds, but the effect of what we spend will be very little if this Bill is all that we can do. It is a "halfpenny tail."

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The right hon. Gentleman has likened me to a barrister who has received a docker's brief. [Hon. Members: "Docker's!"] A dock brief. I must say it is rather bad luck that I am receiving a dock brief and running up against a counsel so successful in rescuing desperate cases himself. I do not propose to detain the Committee very long, because I dealt, on a previous Amendment, with the points raised; but I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman, as a passing criticism of his speech, that he built up his case on two premises, one of which was that there is very little drainage being carried out in this country, and the other that this is a big Bill designed to remedy that state of affairs; and both those premises are quite incorrect. There has been a great deal of drainage carried on in this country since 1930, and very large sums have been spent. The right hon. Gentleman quotes figures of 3,500,000 acres of land requiring arterial drainage. I have looked in the report of the Land Drainage Commission of 1927—that is, 13 years ago—and I find that then the land in immediate need of drainage was said to amount to 1,750,000 acres. Since then, a very great deal of labour and money has been spent on remedying that state of affairs.

Mr. Lloyd George: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the report of the Commission, which I think was appointed by the Baldwin Government—at any rate, it reported in 1927—he will see that it gave the figure of 3,500,000 acres.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am quoting from paragraph 57 of the Report, which says:
It is estimated by the Drainage Engineers, of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries that the productive value of no less than 4,362,000 acres of land in England and Wales, or approximately one-seventh of the total area of land now used for agricultural purposes, is dependent for its fertility on arterial drainage. Of this total 2,892,000 acres are situate in existing drainage areas, while the balance of 1,470,000 acres is outside any drainage district.
So far they describe the geographical situation:
The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has stated, moreover, that at least 1,755,000 acres of land are in immediate need of drainage"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Immediate need."]
Yes. The Report continues:
and of this area only 285,000 acres are within existing drainage districts. Although much of this land may, as regards field drains and ditches, receive proper attention from the individual farmer, his work may be nullified by the absence of adequate arterial drainage.
That was the position 13 years ago.

Mr. Lloyd George: I am sorry I did not give the page to the right hon. Gentleman, but he will find two more categories mentioned—the subordinate watercourses and the main ditches. If he looks at Sir George Stapledon's book, he will find the three figures given. If he has not got the book, I will send him a copy.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The right hon. Gentleman referred to his source as being the Royal Commission on Drainage. I can do no more than refer the right hon. Gentleman to the paragraph in question, which reduces the figure to 1,755,000 acres. There is no other category mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I say that he is apt to use figures in a pictorial fashion.

Mr. Lloyd George: I will send the right hon. Gentleman the extract to-morrow. I have not it here with me now. If I am wrong, I will apologise. I hope that he will do the same.

Mr. Ramsbotham: All I am saying is that I cannot see confirmation in the report of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Before I leave the right hon. Gentleman, I would point out that he criticised this scheme, of which I gave particulars, and he said it amounted to only £4 7s. 3d. per acre. My arithmetic makes it exactly £4, but I will not quarrel with him about the extra7s. 3d. The right hon. Gentleman said with great scorn, whoever reached a figure approaching his estimate? In this case the estimate is only three weeks old. There is between £4 and £5 a 20 per cent. margin, and it would be very remarkable if that margin was exceeded. That, I think, disposes of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) raised points in connection with the drainage to be undertaken. I can only once more build up the position on the report of the Royal Commission to which I referred the right hon. Gentleman, and that showed, 13 years

ago, about 1,750,000 acres which are in need of drainage, and the internal drainage boards which are in the internal areas cover over 2,600,000 acres. The Clause intends to deal with areas not covered by the internal boards. I want to make it crystal clear that this is not a big Bill as far as drainage is concerned. Of course, it is not. The main part of the drainage of this country is arterial drainage which is covered by catchment boards, and a very large portion of the internal drainage is covered by the drainage boards. It has been said on many occasions that the drainage section of the Bill deals with a gap, which experience has shown to exist, namely, the gap which ought to be covered by the county councils and certain borough councils. That gap is nothing like the extent of that covered by the land already supervised and done by the internal drainage boards, and is far less than that in the area controlled by the catchment boards. But it is no doubt very substantial, and we do not know until we see how far it extends. But it is a gap, and to seek to criticise this Bill on the ground that it is a major Bill dealing with the country's drainage, which has never been considered before by anybody, and upon which nobody has spent any money, is making a travesty of the whole thing.

Mr. W. Roberts: May I make my request for information perfectly clear? I understand that the Government have information, which is 13 years old, of the position of land drainage then. My question is. What is the position now? How many acres need draining? I do not care whether they are catchment boards, internal drainage boards or county councils, but I want to know what the problem is?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Obviously, since 1927, when there were 1,750,000 acres that required immediate drainage, a very large diminution of that drainage has taken place. I have not got the figures, and I do not think we could produce the exact figures, as it would require another survey such as the Royal Commission carried out at that time. If there are approximate figures, I will let the hon. Gentleman know them.

Mr. J. Morgan: And there will be a worsening in other directions, such as in the Ouse Valley.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I only want to point out, in conclusion, that this Bill sets out to fill a very definite gap, and it provides a safeguard which catchment boards can easily work, as has been demonstrated by experience and knowledge of anybody concerned with catchment boards, and for that reason I think that a very great deal of the criticism that has been poured forth against this Bill is entirely undeserving.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I heard with great astonishment from the right hon. Gentleman that apparently the Government have not the faintest idea of how many acres in this country ought to be drained at the present time, and I must ask him, What has the Minister of Agriculture been doing for the last seven or eight months? We know he has not been doing much, and we know what the condition with regard to foodstuffs would be if he had taken advice on that question. It does seem astonishing that we should have a statement from a Minister that he cannot give to the House any estimate at all of what amount of acreage in this country requires to be drained.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I said I could give no accurate estimate, because it would require a survey, but, on the other hand, I said I would try to get the approximate figures.

Mr. Boothby: All I am suggesting to my right hon. Friend is that he must have known drainage was going to be mentioned, because this Bill deals with this question. One would have thought that he would have supplied himself with some figures to give to the House about the magnitude of the problem that confronts us. When we hear the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) talk about £230,000 and 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 acres still to be brought in, I feel that my right hon. Friend would have been in a strong position if he had had accurate figures with which to counteract this argument. It makes us so uneasy when he says that he does not really know the extent of this problem. He says that this Bill is to fill a gap, and then, in the next sentence, confesses that he does not know how wide is the gap. The House is not in a position to know whether the figure of £230,000 is quite enough or totally inadequate. I hope the Government will

collect this information. I express the conviction that this day's Debate has done a great deal of good. Exactly the same thing has happened over drainage as has happened again and again over one item of policy after another. The Government continues on ordinary lines until the anxiety and apprehension of the House of Commons reaches explosive point and is raised in Debate before anything is done. I am quite certain that a lot of us will be strongly criticised for criticising the Government, but I hope that in the end the Government will make a great effort with regard to the drainage of the land in this country.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I share with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) his amazement that these figures are not available. The right hon. Gentleman has told us in 1927, as a result of a survey, there were so many acres of land which required to be dealt with and needed attention. Does he seriously tell the Committee that the Government have no record of the acreage dealt with since that time? If they have, they ought to know what the net figure is now. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee that no record has been kept of the acreage that has been dealt with since 1927?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I cannot say to the right hon. Gentleman more than I said just now. There has been no survey since 1927 and, presumably, no entirely accurate figure is available. But I may be able to get the approximate figures of the work done by the various catchment boards and add them together, and if I do I will see that they are made known.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I rise to put a question particularly to the Scottish Minister. It is a question which I understand, was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) with regard to this Clause. It seems to me that it has been proved by the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) that the Government must depend to a very great extent on the desires of the war agricultural executive committee.


Their recommendation with regard to the operation of this Clause must be a guide for the Government. Are hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies satisfied that the composition of war agricultural executive committees gives them the satisfaction they desire with regard to the operation of this Clause? I want to refer to the war agricultural executive committee which has been set up in Sutherlandshire.

Mr. Colville: I would point out to my hon. Friend that this part of the Bill does not apply to Scotland.

Mr. Quibell: The question of drainage has been debated on numerous occasions in this House, and was exhaustively debated on 3rd November, 1937. The then Minister of Agriculture, now the Minister of Food, promised that if the Motion which had been moved was withdrawn he would carry out a thorough and exhaustive inquiry, and bring in amending legislation. Are those figures available?

The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): The Debate is getting very much beyond the Clause.

Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. Clause 30 says:
This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications.
and paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of that Clause says:
for any reference to the War Agricultural Executive Committee for a county or a county borough there shall be substituted a reference to the Agricultural Executive Committee for any area to which the Secretary of State has delegated any of his powers under regulations made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939.
I want to ask whether, in view of that, it is a correct interpretation to say that Clause 14 does not apply to Scotland?

Mr. Colville: If the hon. Member will look on page 24 he will see these words:
Part 3 of this Act shall not apply.
We have a Clause at the end which deals with Scottish drainage.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: We have been striving to find the basis on which the drainage scheme is dealt with in this Clause, and I want to ask on what data the Minister has based the financial allotment of

£230,000? How is it arrived at? That figure should be available to the Minister and enable him to get out of his predicament. We have a certain amount of sympathy with him because he has been brought into the matter at a rather late stage, and also because we know that he is the victim of something which has been going on and has led up to this situation, which must have its nemesis.

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member kindly tell me where that figure is mentioned in Clause 14?

Mr. Morgan: It is in the Memorandum to the Bill which relates to Clause 14, which defines the amount of money to be spent by the authorities under the powers extended to them in Clause 14.

The Chairman: We are not discussing what is in the Memorandum but what is in the Clause.

Mr. T. Williams: The Financial Memorandum refers to Clauses 14 and 15, and reads as follows:
It is not expected that any additional Departmental staff will be required as a result of this Part of the Bill, and Exchequer liabilities will be limited to the cost of the grants in aid of catchment boards' schemes under Clause 14 and mole drainage schemes under Clause 15, which is not expected to exceed in total £230,000 and £150,000 respectively.
Obviously the £230,000 does apply to Clause 14.

The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to be careful to limit his remarks about that passage in the Financial Memorandum. As far as I can gather, there is no provision in the Bill, and certainly not in this Clause, defining the expenditure of any particular sum.

Mr. Morgan: May I ask what is the financial basis of Clause 14, how is that financial basis arrived at, and what acreage is it intended to serve? If that information is available to the Minister, may we have it?

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: That point was put to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal during the Second Reading Debate, and it was then made clear that this figure is an estimate. I believe the House insists on having estimates in the Financial


Memorandum to a Bill. It was made clear in the Second Reading Debate that there is nothing which limits the expenditure to £230,000. If it proves that more is required, more will have to be spent. This figure is an estimate, and there is no limitation or restriction on the amount which may eventually be found to be necessary.

Mr. Morgan: All I can suggest is that, in the words of the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère), the whole matter is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Division No. 20.]
AYES.
[9.59 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Hambro, A. V.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Albery, Sir Irving
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Harbord, Sir A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Assheton, R.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Robertson, D.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Blair, Sir R.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rowlands, G.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Holdsworth, H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salt, E. W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Jennings, R.
Scott, Lord William


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Keeling, E. H.
Selley, H. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Bull, B. B.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Butcher, H. W.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Snadden, W. McN.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Levy, T.
Somerset, T.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Lipson, D. L.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Storey, S.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cranborne, Viscount
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Tate, Mavis C.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Magnay, T.
Touche, G. C.


De la Bère, R.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Danville, Alfred
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Drewe, C.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Dunglass, Lord
Medlicott, Captain F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Ellis, Sir G.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)


Emery, J. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Munro, P.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Etherton, Ralph
Nall, Sir J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Peake, O.



Cower, Sir R. V.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Mr. Grimston and Mr. Buchan- Hepburn.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pym, L. R.



Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Radford, E. A.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Banfield, J. W.
Batey, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Barnes, A. J.
Beaumont, H. (Batley)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Barr, J.
Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Bartlett, C. V. O.
Benson, G.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. De la Bère: It gets "curiouser and curiouser." We do not know the acreage, and what I want to ask is that when the Chairman of the Committee of the War Cabinet, which deals with these things, addresses us on agriculture in the near future, he will be good enough to supply the data and the figure which we have all been trying to get.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 112.

Burke, W. A.
Hollins, A.
Parker, J.


Casells, T.
Horabin, T. L.
Parkinson, J. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Isaacs, G. A.
Pearson, A.


Chater, D.
Jackson, W. F.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Jagger, J.
Price, M. P.


Collindridge, F.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pritt, D. N.


Daggar, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
John, W.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.


David, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirby, B. V.
Hiley, B.


Dobbie, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.


Ede, J. C.
Leach, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leonard, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, S. S.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lunn, W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sloan, A.


Fool, D. M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Gallacher, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Gardner, B. W.
McGovern, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
MacLaren, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Mander, G. le M.
Tinker, J. J.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Marshall, F.
Tomlinson, G.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Mathers, G.
Viant, S. P.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Milner, Major J.
Walkden, A. G.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Montague, F.
Williams E. J. (Ogmore)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilmot, John


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Mort, D. L.
Woodburn, A.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Oliver, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hicks, E. G.
Owen, Major G.



Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 16.—(Powers over dams.)

10.8 p.m.

Brigadier-General Brown: I beg to move, in page 12, line 31, at the end, to insert:
(4) A drainage board shall also indemnify every such person as aforesaid against all claims, demands, damages, costs, charges and expenses which may be made against or recovered from, or incurred by any such person by reason or in consequence of any alteration or removal of any dam in exercise of the provisions of this Section.
The purpose of this Amendment is to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the Clause in respect of compensation is a little too narrowly drawn. There are many other rights which may be damaged, such as mills, sluices, turbines, fishing rights, and other things. It is important that other interests should not be entirely wiped out just for the sake of agricultural land. It is quite possible that more damage might be caused to food production by wiping out all these other interests. If the Minister would look into the question and see whether he could widen the Clause to conserve some of these very important rights, I should be pleased to withdraw the Amendment.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: This Amendment is unnecessary. Sub-section (2) of Clause

16 gives exactly the same right of compensation as is given by Sub-section (7) of Section 44 of the Drainage Act of 1930. Both Sub-sections are drawn in such wide terms as to enable any person who sustains damage by the action of the Board to obtain compensation.

Brigadier-General Brown: If that is so—and I cannot doubt the Minister's word—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Control of sluices).

10.11 p.m.

Sir Lindsay Everard: I beg to move, in page 12, line 40, after "by," to insert:
(except in case of emergency) not less than forty-eight hours' previous.
The object of the Amendment is to give definite notice when an occupier of land is ordered by a board to do something to a sluice. It is reasonable that, if the occupier is to be held responsible if he does not carry out what the board requires, he should have adequate notice of what is expected of him.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we can accept this Amendment in principle. It may be necessary to put it in a proper form of


words, and this will be done in consultation with my hon. Friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.12 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I beg to move, in page 13, line 2, at the end, to insert "or ancillary thereto."
The difficulty is that the Clause says, "any sluice forming part of the dam." The dam may govern the compounding of water some distance from the sluice which controls it. If a sluice happens to be a dam also, it will work all right. I hope the Government will say how they propose to work the Clause in the case where a sluice is some distance from the dam.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am advised that a sluice is a dam. Consequently the Amendment is unnecessary.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I accept what my right hon. Friend says, but the definition of "sluice" at the end of the Clause does not mention "dam." However, it is now on record, and I hope that a court of law will take what my right hon. Friend says. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.14 P.m.

Sir E. Shepperson: I beg to move, in page 13, line 9, after "impounded," to insert:
and shall so exercise the said powers as to interfere as little as may be practicable with such user.
The purpose of the Amendment is to safeguard the user so that he shall not be interfered with detrimentally by any action with regard to the sluice.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am happy to say that I can accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 13, line 9, after the words last inserted, to insert:
(b) a drainage board shall not exercise the powers conferred by this Section in relation to any sluice which is vested in or controlled by a navigation, harbour or conservancy authority.
This is intended to give the navigation and harbour service authorities the pro-

tection which Parliament by its previous legislation clearly intended.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Powers of entry.)

Brigadier-General Brown: I beg to move, in page 13, line 33, after "required," to insert:
and after giving notice to the occupier, at all reasonable times.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: It always gives me great pain to refuse an anticipation of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am afraid I cannot accept his Amendment, for this reason. These are in the main war emergency provisions, and it might be necessary for officers of the drainage authority to enter on to the land at very short notice. The result of the Amendment would be to hold up the work of inspection and the consequent progress of the scheme. It would lead to all sorts of hold-ups and delays which I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend would be the last to desire.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 19.—(Powers of local authorities.)

10.18 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 14, line 26, at the end, to add:
(2) The council of any county may order any occupier of agricultural land who had neglected the proper cleansing or repair of any tile drains on his land to clean or repair them, and if he fails to comply with any such order the council may execute any work for the purpose that they deem requisite, and recover the cost thereof from the occupier.
The position is that a county council can compel a man to clean out the ditches or other drains passing through his property the neglect of which causes damage to other owners. That is a natural principle, but my Amendment makes it possible under war-time conditions to compel an occupier of agricultural land to clean out the drains which may be reducing the productivity of his land. The county council has various powers of dealing, for instance, with rabbits or injurious weeds, and can compel a man to destroy the rabbits or cut injurious weeds on his farm. I suggest


that in war time if occupiers neglect the drains on the land, and thereby reduce its productivity it should be possible to coerce them into keeping their land in a proper way. This is a very small point, and may not affect a great many farms, but I think it would be a useful additional power which a county council might well have at the present time.

10.22 p.m.

Sir E. Shepperson: Although I have much sympathy with the hon. Member, I sincerely hope that the Committee will not accept his Amendment, for the simple reason that this tile drainage may have been done 10 or 20 years ago, and how does he think an occupier is going to find the tile drainage?

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The point which the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) has in mind is already covered under existing legislation, and the war agricultural committees have power under the Defence Regulations to require the occupier of agricultural land to attend not only to the field drains on his land but also to any ditches in which the field drains may run. I suggest that on the whole this Amendment is unnecessary, and indeed the point is already better covered than it would be by the Amendment. Further, the county councils in a good many cases have handed their staffs over to the war agricultural committees, and it would in those circumstances be a great embarrassment to place on them the duty of doing this work.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Might I ask whether the war agricultural executive committees have been warned that this duty falls upon them, and, if so, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what instructions or guidance the war executive committees hand to the district committees, whose job it would be to fulfil this function if it was not fulfilled by the war executive committees?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I cannot say whether there has been any specific instruction to the committees.

Mr. Williams: The First Commissioner will forgive me, but he knows as well as I do that the district committees represent areas almost equivalent to rural dis-

trict areas. The members of a committee include four farmers in the area. Some of them may be landowners as well as occupiers, and some may be merely tenants. Since those four farmers are the only people who act as agents for the county executives, unless specific directions are given to them it is safe to assume that this work will not be undertaken by them. Clearly, if the Minister expects the county agricultural executives to interpret fully and faithfully all that devolves upon them he expects a great deal. If he feels disposed to accept the Amendment and if he thinks that the county executives have this obligation resting upon them, he should at least take steps to intimate that it is their duty to see that the ditches and dykes are carefully drained in all parts of the area looked after by them.

Mr. Ramsbotham: If the hon. Gentleman will make his remarks to the Minister of Agriculture he will see whether it is necessary to make this information more widely known.

Mr. W. Roberts: I would ask the Minister for his explanation. It is not widely known that the war agricultural executives have this power, and it would be valuable if the Minister took this step to see that they knew it. In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 20.—(Obstruction and penalties.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.28 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: This is the penalty Clause which lays down the figure of £50 for summary conviction and a further sum of £100 or two years, so far as England is concerned. I have no objection to those penalties, but I want to know why they are much higher than those to be imposed by the Bill upon another country. It is not fair that there should be higher penalties for English people than for the Scottish. The English are far more amenable to discipline and more likely to keep out of difficulty. They never give trouble, if they can possibly avoid it. Why impose these appalling penalties on them and very light ones on the Scottish people? You should


impose equal penalties. We know that the Scots need a great deal more urging by the energy of the Executive than we do in England.
In this matter I am putting in a word for both the English and the Welsh. Surely I am entitled to some answer? I know the question is a little unexpected. I see that the Minister is trying to get an answer. Now that the Solicitor-General is here, I would suggest that, seeing that the majority of this Committee are English and Welsh, he might explain why heavier penalties are imposed in this way on one section of the community than on another.

10.31 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: It is always difficult to co-ordinate any expressions of opinion about the differences between the law of England and the law of Scotland. All I can say is that, under Clause 20, we have followed the penalties that were prescribed in the Defence Regulations so far as England is concerned. I think that the number and character of offences is different and wider in the case of Clause 20 than in the case of the later Clause to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. In the case of Scotland, the only offences dealt with are obstruction and prevention of entry.

The Chairman: Meanwhile I have been studying the Clause to which the hon. Member referred, and I find that his remarks were entirely out of order on this Clause.

Mr. C. Williams: Yes, Sir Dennis; but I would ask what is the basis for the penalty of £50 and what is the basis for the penalty of £100 or two years?

The Solicitor-General: I had already stated that the basis was the Defence Regulations. This is exactly the same penalty, and it is not an unusual penalty for this class of offence.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 22.—(Provisions as to requisitioned land.)

The Chairman: Mr. Wilfrid Roberts.

Mr. T. Williams: Might I ask, Sir Dennis, what distinction there is between

the previous Amendment on the Paper, which you have decided not to call, and the Amendment which you are now calling?

The Chairman: I think I must leave it to each Member of the Committee to form his own opinion on that. In my opinion the chief difference is that I have decided to call one, and not the other.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 16, line 6, to leave out from "period" to the end of the Sub-section.
Perhaps you will allow me, Sir Dennis, to deal also with the next two Amendments, which are consequential. These Amendments deal with the power of the war agricultural executive committees to take over derelict land. Shortly, the policy and procedure which would be followed, under the Clause as it stands at present, is that the committees, with the approval of the Minister, would have power to take over land that was derelict, and either farm it themselves or re-let it; and before three years after the termination of the war they would be compelled to hand back the land to the present owners, charging the present owners with any improvements which the committees had made, as a result of their work upon the land during the war and the three years after the war. The effect of the Amendment which I am now moving, and of later Amendments, is to empower the Minister to keep that land if he thinks fit to do so. I am doing this not because I have any theoretical belief in the State taking over the land of this country, but because I have a detestation of seeing one of our major natural resources being wasted by the neglect of individual owners. I do not know whether any hon. Members in this House—there may be some—know of any land that was taken over during the last war by county agricultural executive committees acting under exactly similar procedure and then handed back, as is suggested in this Clause, and which now have to be taken over again. I am pretty sure that there is some such land existing in England.
The county committees took over quite a lot of holdings towards the end of the last war and farmed them very creditably. There are reports concerning them in the official history of the Ministry of Agriculture and the war; glowing accounts of


the improvements effected and the increased production that was obtained as a result of the county executive committees taking over land. I heartily approve of the power of the Government to take over land which has been misused by its present owner or occupier, including building land outside towns, but more especially odd pieces of land and odd farms, and possibly old estates, which have been utterly neglected by their present owners. It may be that an owner is incapable of keeping his land in order or that he has not got the capital, through no fault of his own. I do not wish in any way to apportion blame, but when a vital asset in war-time has got into such a state of neglect, then it is necessary for the Government to take it over in order that it can be made to produce food efficiently. But it is a mistake to lay down categorically that land must be handed back to the owner who has neglected it in the past, and who will, no doubt, waste the whole of the improvement which has been carried out at the expense of the country during the war.
As I have said, there is nothing that I detest more than seeing land wasted through neglect, and this is the time and opportunity to take over that land and see that it is farmed properly. For the purposes of the war it is probably right that the war agricultural executive committees should do this work, but I cannot refrain from referring to the bigger question of this derelict land and the misuse of that natural resource. Lord Astor and Mr. Rowntree recommended, in a very important work published last year, that the way to treat this derelict land was to take it over and give it to a land improvements commission. I do not wish to dwell upon that, as it is not what I propose in my Amendment, but I suggest that some permanent organisation is needed in order to make use of waste land of this sort.
I had a letter the other day from a pillar of the Conservative party in my own constituency suggesting that the twin problems of agriculture during war-time were labour and capital. There is the means under this Clause of taking over the worst cases of derelict land, and I do appeal to the Minister to consider whether he can accept my permissive Amendment, which makes it possible for him to retain land in the national interest. It leaves it open to him to hand the land

back again but, nevertheless, gives him the opportunity of retaining it if he thinks that by handing it back it would be allowed to drift once more into a useless condition.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: The Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) and myself does not differ in purpose from the one which has just been moved—

Mr. Alexander: It is a better one.

Mr. Smith: That may be, but it does serve the purpose which we had in mind, and I hope the Committee will give it consideration. If we pass this Clause as printed, it means that within three years from the end of the war period this land must be handed back to the owner. This land was requisitioned in the public interest because it was either not being cultivated or cultivated on the principles of good husbandry. It was taken over in the public interest, and there is no doubt that it will be improved as a result of public effort and public money. Where you have the State spending money for the purpose of improving the land, it appears to be rather bad business to say that at the end of three years from the end of the war period you must hand it back to the owner. You have no guarantee that what you have handed back will not fall into the derelict position it was in before it was requisitioned. Nobody in this Committee knows what will be the position at the end of the war, and it may not be in the national interest, at the end of that period, to hand the land back to the previous owner even though he may get compensation. Many will remember the promises held out during the last war and will recall the slogans about "Back to the land" and land settlements, both in this country and other parts of the Empire. It may be that when this war is over conditions will be such that it would be good business for the State to retain this land for longer than three years.
I submit that this point is worthy of consideration. I am one of those who believe that this country of ours can get more from the land than in the past. Therefore, I hope the Committee will give the Amendment serious consideration. I can imagine hon. Members opposite talk-


ing about private enterprise and private ownership as good individualists usually do. They believe in private enterprise so long as it pays them, but if there is one thing war shows it is this: the moment war breaks out private enterprise in the ordinary sense has to go and the State has to step in. Critics of State policy have to admit that the State does badly what private enterprise cannot do at all in war-time. The national interest must come first, and private interest must stand aside. The Committee will be doing a good stroke of business if it accepts the Amendment.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: This is an important Amendment, and can be approached without debating whether land nationalisation is right or wrong. It is certain that the Government would not have taken these drastic powers if they were not receiving considerable evidence that they were necessary for those who are doing the business of farming in war-time. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment asked if there was an instance of land taken over in the last war, treated and then surrendered, which has now to be improved again. There is an estate near Peace haven in precisely that condition. About 200 or 300 acres were recovered, produced excellent crops, then relinquished, and are now being recovered by four land girls, one of whom was a mannequin in a Bond Street shop and another a dancer. I do not know the identity of the other two, but they have made a supreme job of it. The agricultural organiser for East Sussex tells me that every time he sees these girls working a tractor he has to put his hand to his hat because of the excellent job they are doing in bringing back this derelict land into cultivation. It was brought into cultivation, then allowed to drift into a derelict condition, and is now being brought into cultivation again. On the last occasion the Government did not take powers to levy a charge on that land.
The President of the Land Agents Society knows that there are estates in this country which are in a derelict condition because of the charges which cannot be recovered from the land, and he knows that some land cannot be used because of the existing charges and that

no tenant will go on to the land and farm it. Here the Government are proposing to bring back derelict land into a high state of cultivation and then within three years relinquish it. Why not accept the good work done by the war agricultural committees? They are taking a pride in this work. Why not let them go on with it?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is getting beyond the scope of this Bill, which is limited to the war emergency.

Mr. Morgan: It is specified in the Clause that the Minister or the War Agricultural Executive Committee may be charged with the management of this land, and they are to undertake it, if necessary, for three years after the war. I am discussing what they are to do with it after the war. There is a case at Sutton Scotney in Hampshire which is well known to the Ministry. There are 3,000 acres of land, with a mansion that is now occupied by gypsies, and cottages which have the roofs off. Those 3,000 acres of excellent land cannot be handled. Why? Because the owner will not pay certain charges on the land. Under these powers, the Minister or the War Agricultural Executive Committee will be able to take over this property, and I have not the slightest doubt that—

The Chairman: The hon. Member apparently is not as well acquainted with the Bill as I thought he was. Its main subject is drainage, and it is limited to war emergencies.

Mr. Morgan: The Amendment deals not with the handing over of drainage after the war, but the handing over of properties which have been acquired by the Minister or the War Agricultural Executive Committee.

The Chairman: I must rule out of Order any discussion which has for its object the permanent acquisition of land under this Bill.

Mr. Morgan: After that Ruling, Sir Dennis, it is extremely difficult to understand why the Amendment we are now discussing was allowed to pass the Chair, because it raises the whole issue of whether or not the Minister is to be allowed to hold the land for the three years or less defined in the Bill, or for longer.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is in considerable danger of persuading me to interrupt the Debate and rule that the Amendment is out of Order.

Mr. Morgan: The purpose of the Clause is to acquire land and administer it in the national interest during the war, and the question is whether or not that is desirable, and the period for which it should be permitted. I have referred to a case in Hampshire with which the Minister will be called upon to deal. I find it extremely difficult to understand how the Minister will deal with such an estate unless he takes powers to hold the estate for such time as is necessary to recover the charges.

The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to study the Bill a little more carefully. I have not been able to find in it any power for the Government to acquire land.

Mr. T. Smith: Further to that point of Order. If this Amendment were carried, the Government could hand back the land either a month or 10 years after the end of the war, but it would not give the Government the right to acquire land for ever, as was the object of an Amendment on the Paper in the names of some of my hon. Friends and myself, which was not discussed. I submit that if this Amendment were carried, it would allow certain permissive grounds.

Mr. Boothby: Further to the point of Order, may I direct your attention to the fact that the argument of the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), in moving the Amendment, was addressed solely to the position which would arise at the end of the war and the use to which the land was to be put? He addressed strong arguments to the Committee against handing back this land to any farmer who had proved in the meantime that he was not fanning it in the best possible way. I respectfully submit that unless we can continue discussing the question in those terms, the Amendment, as a whole, is out of Order.

The Chairman: In view of what has been said by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), I plead guilty to not having stopped the hon. Member earlier, but I wish to make it quite clear that under this Bill there is no power to acquire land in the sense of a complete

and permanent transfer of ownership to the State. The provision in the Bill is "to take possession" of the land, and it is well known that that phrase, when it is a case of obtaining possession of land for a certain period and for a certain purpose, means something quite different from acquiring the land as owners. To give an instance, anyone who takes a tenancy of a house for a period takes possession of it, but does not do so in the sense of becoming the owner. The whole scope of the Bill is that it is one to deal with war emergencies and to deal with drainage questions. There is no question of acquiring the land for other purposes.

Mr. Alexander: Sub-section 1 (a) of Clause 22, refers to the case in which possession has been taken of land by the War Agricultural Executive Committee under powers conferred by regulations made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. That, clearly, is a war emergency measure. But under Sub-section (2) which we are now discussing the Minister may
after and notwithstanding the expiry of the said Act, continue in possession of the land.
It seems to me, therefore, that while my hon. Friend may have to use another verb instead of the verb "to acquire," he is in order in arguing that the Ministry should continue in complete possession, without any limitation of the period.

The Chairman: When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) it was not on the ground that the Amendment was out of Order but because of the arguments which the hon. Member was using. The right hon. Gentleman's argument might be used to show that the Amendment is out of Order and I should certainly rule it out of Order if it appeared to be an Amendment for the purpose of making the Government absolute owners of the land but I do not take that to be its intention. It is true that Sub-section (2) does provide for the possession of the land, which is taken by the Government, under this power, being continued after the war but only for a short period and is really part of the general scheme for dealing with the land which has been taken possession of, for a particular purpose.

Sir Percy Harris: May I say that my hon. Friends drafted the Amendment so that it should be in Order and well within the purview of the Bill?

The Chairman: I took that to be so and that the Amendment was to be read in conjunction with the two following Amendments on the Paper.

Mr. Woodburn: May I suggest that the words "for any period" do not alter the principle of the three years?

The Chairman: I am afraid I must ask hon. Members not to discuss the matter further. I have given my Ruling.

Mr. J. Morgan: I am sorry to have given you, Sir Dennis, and the Committee so much trouble. I wish only to refer to the situation which it is proposed to create by this Clause, enabling the Minister to take possession of land for certain purposes, that land being described as, more or less, derelict. I gave instances of the position which arose after the last war, and which is affecting the present situation. Then, land which had been taken possession of was released, and fell back again into a derelict condition. Now the State is placed in the predicament of having to recover possession of that land and again restore it to a proper condition. I am putting in a plea to the Minister that he take powers, not necessarily to give up possession of this land at the end of the three years, but that he hold it if he sees that he cannot recover these charges which he must impose under the terms of this Bill if imposing these charges would have the effect of causing that land to become in its original state again, I can see that the Minister might be able to discharge some of the expenses and responsibilities which he has incurred during the war by retaining possession of this land recovered for war purposes and which may have to be used for war purposes again. As evidence, I can give Peace haven, where we have had to employ land girls from Bond Street.
I hope that the Amendment will be sympathetically considered by the Minister. It is not an Amendment devised for the purpose of acquiring land in order to insert a principle which we advocate. No action which can be taken which involves laying charges upon that land can ensure the appropriate use of it afterwards. I know some of the good work being done by the War Committees. On Tuesday morning we were summoned to attend a meeting with the land agents of a thousand acres in Essex, which is some

of the finest land, where all the farms cannot be occupied and we cannot get tenants yet. The whole committee have requested the chairman to take powers similar to these in order to see that this land is used in such a way that it can be—

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member referring to land which cannot be made use of because of lack of drainage?

Mr. Morgan: Yes, lack of drainage definitely.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must confine himself to that.

Mr. Morgan: It is the lack of drainage resulting in the general condition of the land deteriorating to a point that crops cannot be taken off it and tenants are unable to occupy it. I cannot take up the time of the Committee any more because of the limitations necessarily imposed by the Chairman, but I think the general sense of the Amendment has reached the members of the Committee, and we can expect the sympathy from all quarters to see that the powers in this Bill, if considered good at one point of time, may not be considered good for another time.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Colville: It may be well to remind the Committee that we are dealing with an emergency Measure. [Hon. Members: "And land drainage."] It covers a number of subjects essential to the war emergency. This Amendment seeks to secure for an indefinite period after the war the retention of land by the State. I am not going to argue the question of nationalisation. I should be out of Order. As Secretary of State for Scotland, I think I am the largest landholder for the purposes of land settlement. We have a proposal which relates, not to the purchase of land, but to the retention of land under emergency powers. The words which the hon. Member seeks to omit enable the Minister, where possession has been taken of such land, to let it on a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act, which is the proper way to deal with it.

Mr. J. Morgan: Would the land be taken possession of merely because it was not being properly drained?

Mr. Colville: That might be a factor. The words which the hon. Member seeks


to omit are for the purpose of enabling us to let the land long enough to bring us a reasonable return for the work involved in bringing the land back to a state of cultivation. This Sub-section is to be read in conjunction with the Sub-section which enables recovery from the owner on his return of sums equal to the value of the land which is attributable to what has been done to enable the land to be properly farmed. The hon. Members who are proposing the Amendment are reading into what is purely war emergency legislation something quite different. It refers only to property which has been taken possession of as a war emergency measure. We should apply our minds to the purposes of the Bill and to getting immediately as much return as we can from the land, and it only confuses us if we are asked to consider wide and sweeping changes of the kind which the Amendment proposes.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I am not convinced by the reply of the Secretary of State. He admits that this Clause is not restricted to the question of land drainage, and therefore admits a good deal of the case put by the Mover of the Amendment. We are dealing with land taken over under the Emergency Powers Act, in the first instance, by war agricultural committees for the reasons stated in Clause 22 (1, b); that is that the land was not being cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. We are submitting that if, as a result of three or four years of intensive expenditure by the State upon that land, and of expenses of public management, the land is better used, there are two courses open to the public authorities in control of the land. Instead of the Government limiting their powers under Sub-section (2) so that they must return the land after a period of not more than three years after the war, they could first make a charge upon the owner and recover the whole or part of the special State expenditure; or they have open to them what is, in our view, a much better course, and that is at least to retain possession of the land until they had recouped the State to the full for the whole of the public expenditure that has been made on the land during the war emergency and retrieving it from a position of complete dereliction. We have received no real answer at all to that point, and I beg the Gov-

ernment, whether they go into the Lobby or not against us—for we certainly must divide—that they will reconsider the question between now and Report. I see no real case at all for us to be demanding public service from every class of the community in a war emergency and for us to be spending tens of millions upon agriculture and then calmly hand this back to the very people who did not know how to use it and had no sense of responsibility to the State in respect of its ownership.

Sir Stanley Reed: May I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider this on Report and give due weight to the arguments that have been put forward, because it embodies a principle very dear to many of us?

11.12 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I only want to add to what I have said that this is not an ideological but a purely practical Amendment. I do not believe it is possible to bring much derelict land into proper production and hand it back within four or five years from to-day and to do that with any satisfaction to anyone concerned. What sort of satisfaction can a tenant get when he is told that after the war, when he has put his work into the farm and really improved it, he is going to be handed back to the landlord who could not do a thing for him before? What sort of tenant are you going to get? I get a lot of information from circulars that I receive. I am interested to find out what the Government really intend to do under this Clause as the result of the instructions that they send out to the committees concerned. The owner of land which is derelict, producing practically nothing, because of his inability to contribute anything towards the cost of bringing it back to cultivation, is useless as an owner. You put a tenant in to bring the farm back and tell him that the moment he has got it back into good order you hand him back to his derelict owner.

Sir E. Shepperson: I should like to ask a question of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. If the derelict land is wrongly cultivated, as he suggests, and is to be farmed by the war executive committees, or some other body, for many years after the war, who will finance the losses that will be sustained?


Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Division No. 21.]
AYES.
[11.16 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Albery, Sir Irvine
Hambro, A. V.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Assheton, R.
Harbord, Sir A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Harland, H. P.
Robertson, D.


Balniel, Lord
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Blair, Sir R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rowlands, G.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Holdsworth, H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Salt, E. W.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Jennings, R.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Keeling, E. H.
Scott, Lord William


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Selley, H. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Channon, H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Levy, T.
Snadden, W. McN.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lindsay, K. M.
Somerset, T.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lipson, D. L.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Critchley, A.
Loftus, P. C.
Storey, S


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Culverwell, C. T.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Tate, Mavis C.


David, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
M'Connell, Sir J.
Thomas, J. P. L.


De la Bère, R.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tree. A. R. L. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKie, J. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Denville, Alfred
Magnay, T.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Drewe, C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dunglass, Lord
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Ellis, Sir G.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Emery, J. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Munro, P.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Etherton, Ralph
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fildes, Sir H.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Peaks, O.



Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.- 


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pym, L. R.
Colonel Kerr.


Grimston, R. V.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Gallacher, W.
Milner. Major J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)


Adamson, W. M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Mort, D. L.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.


Barnes, A. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Owen, Major G.


Barr, J.
Hicks, E. G.
Paling, W.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Parker, J.


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Pearson, A.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Horabin, T. L.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Isaacs, G. A.
Price, M. P.


Benson, G.
Jackson, W. F.
Pritt, D. N.


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Cassells, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ridley, G.


Chater, D.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ritson, J.


Cocks, F. S.
John, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Collindridge, F.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Daggar, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Sloan, A.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
MacLaren, A.
Tomlinson, G.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 87.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)



Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Woodburn, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilmot, John
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Mr. Wilfrid Roberts and Sir Percy Harris.

The Chairman: Brigadier-General Clifton Brown.

Brigadier-General Brown: Brigadier-General Brown rose—

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.24 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury what his intentions are with regard to this Measure? We are agreed that Progress must be reported, but we want to know the intentions of the Government with regard to the remainder of the Committee stage. As I see it, the Order Paper contains two more Amendments of substance. It was agreed provisionally that, should we fail to complete the Committee stage of the Bill to-day, we should continue with it as the first Order to-morrow. That was the general impression among my hen. Friends. I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that little or no time has been wasted, and certainly not from these benches. Hon. Members opposite have taken a very great part in the criticism to-day. I suggest it would serve the best interest, not only of the House, but of the Secretary of State for Scotland and everybody else, if the remainder of the Committee stage could be taken as the first Order to-morrow. I am sure it would expedite the business, and it would please hon. Members in all parts of the House. I do not object to the Motion moved by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

11.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I should like to correct one part of the statement of the hon. Member. When the Prime Minister announced the business for this week he said that we should take the Committee stage of this Bill to-day, and that if we failed to complete the Committee stage to-day we should continue with it to-morrow. He announced to-morrow's business as being the India and Burma Orders, first; and, secondly, the Rating and Valuation (Postponement of Valuations) Bill. He never said—and I can speak with authority on this, as I had something to do with it—that this would be the first Order to-morrow. But if the

Committee are agreeable that we should continue with it as the first Order, and then take the India and Burma Orders and then the Rating and Valuation (Postponement of Valuations) Bill, I have no objection. But that is only if it is clearly understood in all parts of the House

Mr. T. Williams: I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his very generous and, I think, exceptionally sympathetic response. I would only point out that on the Paper there are 2½ pages of Amendments, not one of which is from the official Opposition.

11.28 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I would like to express the views of my party on this. I am quite willing to fall in with the views expressed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I take exception to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that there is anything generous in what he has done. On the contrary it is very generous of this Committee to facilitate the Government in the way it has. The Committee has been very generous to the Government in the way it has dealt with the business to-day.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1939.

Resolved,

"That the Home-Grown Oats (Standard Price) Order, 1939, varying the standard price provided for in Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Agricultural Development Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on the eighteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and forty, be approved."—[Mr. Ramsbotham.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,

"That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the Urban District of Feltham, which was presented on the 6th day of February, 1940, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act,


1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the Borough of Godalming, which was presented on the 6th day of February, 1940, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the Rural District of Malling, which was presented on the 6th day of February, 1940, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-Eight Minutes before Twelve o'Clock